Euthanasia - Do the UN's criticisms of the French bill also apply to Belgium?

As a State Party to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, France has committed to effectively respecting and guaranteeing the rights recognised by this international treaty.

In its initial interpellation, the CRDP expressed its concerns that the bill, once adopted, would not respect the right to life of persons with disabilities. Among the many criticisms raised by the committee were, in particular, the criterion of suffering, which could be considered ‘intrinsic to disability’, and the lack of real alternatives (palliative care, moral support, home help, adapted housing, etc.).

A ‘clear eugenic orientation’

In its response, the French government sought to minimise the criticism by stating that the bill was still unfinished and that, in any case, it contained safeguards to prevent abuse.

However, the Committee did not consider these arguments to be sufficient. In its conclusions published in September, it used particularly strong words: ‘the bill has a clear eugenic orientation that reflects a deep-rooted ableism [editor's note: negative prejudices towards people with disabilities] within the State party’.

Disability seen as a ‘social disease’ to be ‘eradicated’

The Committee specifies that this eugenic orientation of the bill ‘stems from a medical model in which disability is considered a “social disease” whose treatment can only lead to the eradication of the source of the disease, i.e. persons with disabilities themselves.’

While pointing out the overly vague and subjective nature of the eligibility criteria for assisted suicide and euthanasia, the CRPD also warns of the risk of trivialising assisted suicide, reinforced by the prospect of criminalising suicide prevention through the offence of obstruction currently provided for in the text.

What lessons can Belgium learn from this?

While the UN's criticism in this case concerns a bill that has not yet been adopted, what lessons can be learned from it for countries that have already legalised euthanasia and/or assisted suicide, such as Belgium, but also the Netherlands, Switzerland and Canada (all parties to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities)? The criticism levelled at France is in fact – at least implicitly – directed at all countries that allow the programmed death of persons with disabilities, including Belgium.

It should be recalled that in 2024, during the periodic review of compliance with its obligations, the CRPD pointed out various shortcomings on the part of the Belgian State (INFO IEB: UN points to Belgium for ‘high rate’ of abortions linked to prenatal testing for trisomy). In its parallel report as part of this periodic review, the Belgian inter-federal centre for equal opportunities, Unia, itself pointed to numerous obstacles to the inclusion and respect of the rights of persons with disabilities in Belgium.

With regard to the prevention of suicide or euthanasia of persons with disabilities in Belgium, the CRPD's criticism of France raises several questions: What is Belgium doing to alleviate the suffering of persons with disabilities? What strategies has it implemented to enable them to live with dignity and be truly included in society?

Euthanised due to lack of medical care

In Belgium, several cases of persons with disabilities who have requested euthanasia raise serious questions about the lack of institutional and financial support and assistance that led to their deaths by euthanasia. One example is Joke Mariman, who was euthanised in September 2023 at the age of 43 after suffering from a rare disease that left her severely disabled and in need of specific treatment. The difficulties she faced – an endless queue for the granting of benefits – in obtaining sufficient state coverage for the costs of these treatments ultimately led her to prefer to die by euthanasia rather than ‘continue to fight to survive’. We should also mention the case of Shanna, a young Belgian woman with a disability who also chose euthanasia at the age of 39, saying she could no longer wait for her medical expenses to be covered so that her physical pain could be alleviated.

The UN's concerns about France relate to potential future violations of the right to life of persons with disabilities. With regard to Belgium and other countries that allow euthanasia, these concerns appear to correspond to very real and current risks. It is worth recalling the CRPD's recommendations to Canada in March 2025, urging the authorities to stop authorising euthanasia for persons with disabilities. As for the Netherlands, the UN Human Rights Committee had already expressed its concerns in 2009 about the high number of euthanasia cases in that country. This raises questions about the compliance of Belgian legislation on euthanasia with international commitments to guarantee the rights of persons with disabilities, and about a possible future intervention by the UN on this issue.