logo
France's National Assembly to vote on long-debated bill legalizing end-of-life options

France's National Assembly to vote on long-debated bill legalizing end-of-life options

Independent27-05-2025
France's lower house of parliament, the National Assembly, is voting Tuesday on a bill to allow adults with incurable illness to take lethal medication, as public demands grow across Europe for legal end-of-life options.
Tuesday's vote, expected in the late afternoon, is a key legislative step on the contentious and long-debated issue. If approved by a majority of lawmakers, the bill will be sent to the Senate for further debate.
The proposed measure defines assisted dying as allowing people to use a lethal substance under certain conditions so that they may take it themselves. Only those whose physical condition doesn't allow them to do it alone would be able to get help from a doctor or a nurse.
The bill provides for strict conditions
To benefit from the newly proposed measure, patients would need to be over 18 and be French citizens or live in France.
A team of medical professionals would need to confirm that the patient has a grave and incurable illness 'at an advanced or terminal stage,' is suffering from intolerable and untreatable pain, and is seeking lethal medication of their own free will.
Patients with severe psychiatric conditions and neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer's disease won't be eligible.
The person would initiate the request for lethal medication and confirm the request after a period of reflection.
If approved, a doctor would then deliver a prescription for the lethal medication, which could be taken at home, at a nursing home or a health care facility.
In parallel, another bill on palliative care meant to reinforce measures to relieve pain and preserve patients' dignity will also be put to a vote Tuesday.
A 2023 report indicated that most French citizens back legalizing end-of-life options, and opinion polls show growing support over the past 20 years. Initial discussions in parliament last year were abruptly interrupted by President Emmanuel Macron's decision to dissolve the National Assembly, plunging France into a months-long political crisis.
Months-long debate still ahead
A definitive vote on the measure could take months to be scheduled amid France's long and complex legislative process. The National Assembly has the final say over the Senate.
Earlier this month, Macron suggested he could ask for French voters to approve the measure via referendum if parliament discussions get off track.
Activists supporting the change have criticized the complexity and length of the parliamentary process that they say is penalizing patients waiting for end-of-life options.
Many French people have traveled to neighboring countries where medically assisted suicide or euthanasia are legal.
The Association for the Right to Die with Dignity (ADMD) has called on French lawmakers 'to respect the French who want the same right that our Dutch, Belgian, Luxembourgian, Swiss, Spanish, Portuguese neighbors have.'
French religious leaders issued this month a joint statement to denounce the bill, warning about the 'dangers' of an 'anthropological rupture.' The Conference of Religious Leaders in France (CRCF), which represents the Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim and Buddhist communities, said the proposed measures risk exerting pressure on older people and those with illnesses or disabilities.
Similar talks in the U.K.
The debate in France comes as similar talks are ongoing in the U.K., where lawmakers are debating a bill to help terminally ill adults end their lives in England and Wales after giving it initial approval in November.
Medically assisted suicide involves patients taking, of their own free will, a lethal drink or medication that has been prescribed by a doctor to those who meet certain criteria. Euthanasia involves doctors or other health practitioners giving patients who meet certain criteria a lethal injection at their own request.
Assisted suicide is allowed in Switzerland and several U.S. states. Euthanasia is currently legal in the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Canada, Australia, Colombia, Belgium and Luxembourg under certain conditions.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

German passport e-gates won't change the reality: Brexit has been a disaster for British travellers
German passport e-gates won't change the reality: Brexit has been a disaster for British travellers

The Independent

timea minute ago

  • The Independent

German passport e-gates won't change the reality: Brexit has been a disaster for British travellers

Great barrier grief: that is what the UK government promises to end, at least for British travellers to Germany. 'Millions of UK travellers to Germany will be able to use e-gates in the future thanks to a new agreement made between prime minister Keir Starmer and German chancellor Friedrich Merz today,' the Cabinet Office says. 'Germany will roll out the first phase of e-gates access for UK travellers by the end of August, starting with frequent travellers such as Brits with family in Germany or who travel regularly for business.' I have asked the Cabinet Office how this will work: how do the e-gates (or the staff in charge) know whether I have family in Germany? In the absence of a a cousin in Cologne or a daughter in Dresden, might I squeak in as a regular business traveller; I have also asked how frequently must I visit to qualify? In any event, once through the e-gates a smiling German official will need to stamp my passport– in accordance with what the UK demanded when leaving the European Union. Boris Johnson 's fearless negotiators insisted that we would become 'third-country nationals' not required to obtain a visa. Brussels capitulated to our wish to spend hours waiting in queues; to discover that rules on passports validity meant thousands would be turned away from planes; and to have our documents minutely examined to ensure we have not spent more than 90 days in the past 180 days within the Schengen area. Our illustrious status is shared with many other citizens, from East Timor to El Salvador. But unlike them, the British traditionally make tens of millions of journeys to the EU each year. We would love to make more of those trips by rail, but the tangle of red tape we negotiated means there isn't enough space for processing passengers at London St Pancras International, the Eurostar hub. Yet here's the the transport secretary, Heidi Alexander, promising 'a direct connection linking London and Berlin' could be in place 'in just a matter of years'. The press was briefed that trains from the UK to Germany could be running by 2030. Allow me to present an equally plausible transport goal for the next five years: 'Personal jet packs for all.' The UK government is clutching at bureaucratic straws with claims such as 'Estonia has confirmed they will open up access at Tallinn airport in 2026'. Wise ministers surely know they should be yelling from the rooftops something that the most ardent Leave voter must accept: 'Brexit has proved deeply damaging for British travellers to Europe, and we need to fix it.' Tourists, students, business travellers and those with family in the EU have all suffered from the self-harm administered by Brexit. Your ease of access to the EU this summer depends on your DNA and/or birthplace. UK citizens wise enough to have ancestry in Ireland, north or south, can obtain an EU passport and regain all the travel freedoms we asked to be taken away.

Carrying chickens by legs causes them pain, Green Party leader warns
Carrying chickens by legs causes them pain, Green Party leader warns

The Independent

timea minute ago

  • The Independent

Carrying chickens by legs causes them pain, Green Party leader warns

Carrying chickens by their legs 'causes injury, pain and unnecessary distress', Adrian Ramsay has warned in a bid to block a law change. The Government has planned to overturn an EU ban on catching and carrying poultry by their legs. But Green Party co-leader Mr Ramsay has called for animal welfare standards to be 'improved, not stripped back', as he urged ministers to halt their plans. He has tabled a 'prayer motion', calling for the Welfare of Animals (Transport) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 to be 'annulled' before they come into force next week. The regulations set out that farmers will be able to catch and carry turkeys weighing 5kg or less and chickens by both legs, but not by one leg. The existing ban 'does not reflect long-standing policy on appropriate methods of 'catching' chickens set out in GB statutory guidance', according to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). Ministers' decision to change the law followed a consultation throughout Great Britain, which found 40% of respondents supported two-leg catching. The majority of these were 'poultry industry stakeholders' who 'did not consider two-leg catching to be directly detrimental to bird welfare'. Some industry stakeholders also 'confirmed that young turkeys (weighing 5kg or less) are routinely caught by two legs, while older heavier turkeys (weighing more than 5kg) are routinely caught upright, by a range of different methods'. But Mr Ramsay told the PA news agency: 'The Government's attempt to quietly weaken animal welfare standards for poultry is deeply troubling. 'After Defra cited this practice in its guidance, ministers are now attempting to restore outdated industry practices in law. 'Allowing chickens to be carried upside down by their legs causes injury, pain and unnecessary distress. 'I want our animal protection laws to be improved, not stripped back further. 'If handling methods widely used on farms don't meet welfare standards, then they need to be improved, not made legal because enforcement has failed.' His motion has received cross-party backing, including from Conservative MP for Brigg and Immingham Martin Vickers, his running mate in this year's Green Party leadership election Ellie Chowns, and Labour MP for North Ayrshire and Arran Irene Campbell.

What happened the last time a Labour government opted to lower the voting age?
What happened the last time a Labour government opted to lower the voting age?

The Independent

timea minute ago

  • The Independent

What happened the last time a Labour government opted to lower the voting age?

Grappling with economic difficulties including rising prices at a time of accelerated social change and growing concerns about immigration, Harold Wilson's Labour government introduced legislation to lower the voting age. The Representation of the People Act 1969 was a major milestone in the development of modern democracy, as the UK became the first country to lower the voting age from 21 to 18. The Act triggered change elsewhere as other democracies soon followed suit. The economic and social conditions in the late 60s have clear parallels with those facing the current Labour Government, while the announcement of its intention to lower the voting age to 16 has been described as the biggest reform to our electoral system since 1969. Sir Keir Starmer said it was 'important' to lower the voting age, as 16-year-olds were old enough to work and 'pay in' through tax, so should 'have the opportunity' to say how they wanted their money spent. Polling suggests Labour stand to gain the most from reform, with 33% of 16 and 17-year-olds polled by ITV news saying they would back the party, while 20% said they would choose Reform UK and 18% the Greens. Therefore, while ministers will not accept that electoral advantage is a motivating factor for the changes, some opponents may argue that this is the case. Some historians suggest an expectation of a boost in vote share was not a factor in decision making within Harold Wilson's administration at the time. This, it is claimed, was because the voting intentions of younger people were far from clear. But in his history of the Labour Party, Andrew Thorpe claimed the lowering of the voting age was 'less a principled commitment to young people than a piece of gerrymandering based on the assumption that young people were more likely to vote Labour than Conservative'. While today some argue that lowering the voting age will counter political apathy or disenchantment among the young, research by the University of Huddersfield found no evidence that this fuelled demands for reform in the 1960s. It highlighted that there was no significant difference in turnout between young and older voters prior to the 1969 Act, with large numbers of young people joining youth organisations linked with the main political parties. However, amid contemporary concerns about radicalisation, the push for voting at 18 in the 1960s has been linked in part to growing concern that social alienation among the young could lead to 'widespread antidemocratic embrace of either far-left or nationalist causes'. The path to reform was set when the government in 1965 announced that a committee chaired by Justice John Latey would examine at what age individuals are considered an adult. Published in 1967, the committee concluded that young people aged 18 should have adult rights, including owning property and being able to marry without the consent of their parents. The report said: 'This Committee is convinced that we must ensure that the young go out into the world as fully prepared for their adult responsibilities as possible, and that in giving them adult status at 18 we are doing no more than recognising the simple facts.' Some in Harold Wilson's cabinet were against reform, but the matter was resolved in favour of change and the government published a white paper. Some of the subsequent arguments against reform at the time were said to focus on what can be considered the appropriate age of 'maturity' and contained 'assertions over the extent to which young people were competent, sentient humans, capable of voting', according to the University of Huddersfield research. However, advocates at the time echoed arguments regularly heard today under the principle of 'no taxation without representation'. Conservatives repeatedly requested a free vote on the issue, but the Labour government – with an overall majority of 67 – whipped its MPs, suggesting a nervousness over the depth of commitment to reform. The Representation of the People Bill passed into law in July 1969, but by the following year the Labour Party had lost a total of 16 seats in by-elections. The economy was showing signs of improvement, boosting Labour's standing in the polls and prompting Mr Wilson to call a general election. But, in what many observers considered a surprise result, Labour was defeated by the Conservatives led by Edward Heath. In the context of arguments then and now about political engagement and lowering the voting age, it is notable that the 72% turnout at the election was the lowest since 1955. Census data suggested that although about 800,000 newly-enfranchised 18 to 20-year-olds were due to be added to the electoral register for the general election, only 464,000 were actually registered. Lowering the voting age was also considered under the last Labour government led by Tony Blair and later Gordon Brown. Neither leader formally declared a commitment to enfranchising 16-year-olds, but the issue was debated in Parliament and supported by some Labour MPs. However, there was not widespread cross-party backing for reform at the time, with many Conservatives either opposed or unenthusiastic about reform, raising the prospect of legislation facing a difficult passage through Parliament. Competing policy priorities have also been cited as a factor in electoral reform being sidelined, with issues such as constitutional reform, health and the economy taking up political bandwidth. Historians have also referenced concerns over potential controversy due to doubts over public support, while the lack of a prominent campaign for change is said to have prevented votes at 16 gaining momentum.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store