France’s bill on medically assisted dying has passed its final reading in parliament, with 291 lawmakers voting in favor and 241 against.
The legislation, which had initially been rejected by the Senate, was ultimately adopted after lengthy parliamentary debate in its original form. If it enters into force, France could become one of the countries with the most liberal laws on medically assisted suicide.
The vote exposed deep political divisions within the National Assembly. Right-wing parties overwhelmingly opposed the bill. In the National Rally (RN), only 12 deputies supported it while 106 voted against. Among The Republicans, five lawmakers voted in favor and 41 opposed it. The Union of the Right for the Republic (UDR) unanimously rejected the proposal. Nevertheless, President Emmanuel Macron’s parliamentary majority succeeded in pushing the legislation through.
Critics argue that the law provides few safeguards for patients who decide to seek medical assistance in ending their lives. Family members are not required to be informed before the procedure and may only learn about it after the patient’s death.
French legal scholar Grégor Puppinck, Director of the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ), published a detailed analysis highlighting what he considers major flaws in the legislation.
“This text is radical—not only because of its broad eligibility criteria, but even more because the euthanasia procedure is placed almost entirely in the hands of a single physician, with virtually no oversight after the patient’s death. Everything has been designed to facilitate death. Read these 27 points and ask yourself whether this law truly protects vulnerable people, elderly patients, from well-intentioned doctors who might encourage them to exercise this so-called ‘right to die.’ This law creates not so much a freedom to die as permission to kill.”
According to Puppinck, the legislation allows a physician to meet a patient for the first time on the day the request is submitted, consult two individuals of the physician’s choosing without personally examining them, and make a decision within three days. People under legal guardianship are not automatically excluded from the procedure, while family members are neither informed in advance nor granted the right to appeal.
French Senate President Gérard Larcher has announced his intention to refer the law to the Constitutional Council. He argues that it raises serious constitutional concerns regarding human dignity, the right to life, and the protection of vulnerable individuals.
Referral to the Constitutional Council is an uncommon legal procedure that suspends the law’s implementation until the court reaches a decision.
Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu, who has publicly expressed reservations about the bill, also intends to challenge several of its provisions, including the three-day reflection period, what he considers insufficient safeguards for vulnerable patients, and the absence of a collective conscience clause for healthcare professionals. However, he chose not to halt the legislative process despite having the authority to do so.
As the bill approached its final vote, several lawmakers who had previously supported it changed their position. Around ten deputies switched from supporting to opposing the legislation, citing concerns about what they described as a profound shift in the country’s ethical framework. Their change of heart, however, was not enough to prevent its adoption.
France has now taken a significant step in reshaping its end-of-life legislation. The long-term impact on vulnerable patients and medical practice remains uncertain, while the Constitutional Council’s review could still determine whether parts of the law—or the law itself—must be revised before taking effect.
President Emmanuel Macron, who had pledged during his election campaign to introduce legislation on assisted dying, has now fulfilled one of his key political commitments. The final outcome will depend on the Constitutional Council’s ruling.
