France: Will the government force through the euthanasia bill?
The French bill on ‘assisted dying’ has just entered its third reading in the National Assembly. Whilst a consensus between MPs and senators on the legalisation of euthanasia and assisted suicide seems increasingly unlikely, the question now is whether the government will allow the National Assembly to push this reform through.
The bill returns to the National Assembly following the failure of the Joint Committee to reach an agreement between MPs and senators. Currently under discussion in committee, the proposal will be examined in a public sitting from Monday 22 June. From 7 July, the Senate will proceed to its third reading during an extraordinary session, in principle convened by the President of the Republic.
Should the Senate again disagree with the text adopted by the National Assembly, the government has the option of giving MPs the final say. Whilst the Minister for Relations with Parliament recently confirmed this possibility, Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu has remained silent on the matter.
This bill was adopted at second reading by the National Assembly on 27 May 2025, then rejected on 12 May 2026 by the Senate. The difficulty in reaching an agreement reflects a philosophical and anthropological divide within French society, between those who consider euthanasia to be a medical and societal transgression, and those who defend the right for the state to provide them with the means to die. According to Bruno Retailleau, leader of the Republicans in the Senate, “it is up to the French people to settle this anthropological question” by referendum. Philippe Vigier, the bill’s general rapporteur in the National Assembly, has for his part said he is determined to have the bill passed as it stands.
Assisted suicide or, failing that, euthanasia
The bill aims to amend the Public Health Code by including “assistance in dying” among patients’ rights, on a par with treatment or care. Many MPs are calling for this provision to be withdrawn, arguing that by voluntarily ending the patient’s life, “active assistance in dying” cannot in any way be considered as care.
Furthermore, the term “assistance in dying” is preferred to “euthanasia”, deemed “tainted by history” by Olivier Fallorni, the bill’s main author, or to “assisted suicide”. Yet, in practical terms, this is indeed assisted suicide, since the text stipulates that, in principle, the patient administers the lethal substance to themselves. In the event that the patient is unable to carry out such an act themselves, provision is made for the possibility that the doctor or another healthcare professional may perform euthanasia by administering the poison to the patient. These two forms of planned death are thus equated by some with other forms of end-of-life care: “It is an additional option,” according to Brigitte Liso, one of the Commission’s five rapporteurs. However, equating assisted dying with a form of end-of-life care appears to contradict the medical profession’s vocation to treat and support people until the very end. More fundamentally, this semantic choice masks the fact that such “assistance” in dying actually consists of deliberately causing the patient’s death.
Unanimity on palliative care, growing dissent over assisted dying
Whilst the political divide over “assisted dying” is widening as the bill progresses through parliament, the palliative care bill was passed unanimously by the National Assembly in February, and by an overwhelming majority in the Senate in May 2026. These votes demonstrated a broad consensus on the need for people at the end of life to have access to optimal care in medical, psychological, social and, where appropriate, spiritual terms.
The proposed legislation on assisted suicide and euthanasia, however, reignites divisions and blurs the distinction between the two approaches: in one case, accompanying a person towards death with the least possible suffering; in the other, bringing about death prematurely. “By crossing the line that separates letting die from causing death, this right transgresses the fundamental prohibition against taking life. This prohibition is not an archaic relic; it is the foundation upon which the patient’s trust in the carer rests, and more broadly the protection of any vulnerable person against pressure—even well-meaning pressure—to end their life,” states Annie Vidale, Renaissance MP.
Among the criteria set out in the text is the requirement to “be capable of expressing one’s wishes freely and in an informed manner”. When a person is in a situation of great suffering (the applicant must“be suffering from a serious and incurable condition, be in the terminal stage, with no chance of recovery, and be experiencing constant physical and psychological suffering linked to this condition...”), we may question the patient’s capacity to make a truly free request, especially given the difficult circumstances (beds being closed, staff shortages, suffering, vulnerability). Is it not the State’s duty to ensure that every French citizen has access to care, before proposing a right to relief through death?
Clearly, the gap is widening between the unanimity surrounding palliative care and the lack of consensus to pass the proposal on ‘assisted dying’, whilst the majority in favour of this bill is shrinking with each reading. The central question remains whether the Prime Minister will exercise his right to have the final say in the National Assembly. Even so, the question will be whether he can justify such a forceful push on a subject that is so fundamental and divisive from an anthropological and societal perspective.
