what changes in the text of the law after the vote on article 5 by the deputies

MEPs removed the possibility given to a third party to administer the lethal substance.

The deputies voted on Thursday June 6 for article 5 of the bill on the end of life, which sets out the main principles of assistance in dying. But the text is reworked because the deputies modified an important provision. By one vote, they removed from the text the fact that a loved one could administer the lethal substance to the patient who so wishes.

What the initial text provided

The initial text provided that a condemned patient, who is suffering and lucid, could request assistance in dying. The principle established is that it is up to him to administer the lethal product. But there is an exception. If the patient is physically unable to do so, then someone can administer it. Who ? That’s the big question. The text provided for two possibilities: that the act be carried out by a volunteer nurse or doctor or a voluntary third person who could be a relative, a wife, a son, a father, a friend.

Long debates between deputies

Can a loved one kill someone? This is the question that many MPs have been openly wondering about for several days. Long debates on this question of bioethics have taken place. This point touches on the intimate and the deputies finally decided to remove this possibility, judging that this would place a very heavy burden on the shoulders of the relative concerned. “Me, if my father asks me tomorrow, because he is not physically able to do it, I will do it. But I am almost convinced that all my life I will carry trauma and I will experience the fact of having killed him very badly, even if he suffered, even if he was condemned, we must not forget those who remain.argued in particular Thomas Ménage, RN deputy.

“This is one of the questions on which I have changed a lot, and I perhaps still have doubts, but in any case, at the moment, I think that we must restrict the giving of this lethal substance either by the patient or by a caregiver and not bring another person in there”for her part defended the communist Elsa Faucillon.

“What freedom does a person have when their loved one asks them to do this? When will they not dare to say no?”

the socialist deputy Laurent Panifous

at franceinfo

“Administration by a relative, which would be a unique innovation in the world, is not a bad idea, it is a very bad idea”for her part decided the Renaissance MP Laurence Cristol.

Conversely, allowing a loved one to kill can be an act of love, believe the general rapporteur of the text Olivier Falorni and Danielle Simonnet of Les Insoumis. “It is not possible in my opinion to refuse that, in certain circumstances, because the patient wishes it, because the loved one wishes it, we prohibit what we can rightly or wrongly consider as an act of ‘love towards one’s neighbor’argued Olivier Falorni. “Who are we to judge and prohibit. And above all, it has already happened and it will happen. The question is therefore ‘do we protect the caregivers who were nearby and the caregivers who did it? in all conscience?” judge for his part Daniel Simonnet.

This question could come up in other articles

In the new text, the deputies therefore decided that a loved one could not cause death, but this debate is not necessarily definitively closed. The removal of the intervention of relatives was voted by only 43 votes to 42, so it was decided by one vote when the debates resumed at 9 a.m., when few deputies were present. The question could also come up again. The deputies voted for article 5 which laid down the main principles of this assistance in dying, but the following articles detail the terms and procedure for administering the lethal product. Third parties, caregivers or relatives, will again be discussed in article 11 this time. With most certainly, once again a debate on the subject. But this will not happen immediately. After ten days of examination, the deputies are only at article 6, the one which defines the criteria to be met for patients who wish to benefit from assistance in dying. This article has been discussed since Thursday noon and there are a lot of amendments to consider.