Assisted dying on the verge of a vote: a legislative chimera facing conscience

Context

In our previous editions, we followed the progress of the bill on "aid in dying" in the National Assembly: the failure of the referendum, the resistance of healthcare workers, and citizen mobilization. The week of June 23, 2026, marks a turning point. The motion of rejection filed by opponents of the text was itself rejected. The final vote is approaching.

In over fifty cities across France, on June 23, citizens gathered under the slogan: "Our dying are not burdens." In Paris, the mobilization took place in the immediate vicinity of the National Assembly. This is not a news item: it is the people saying what the law does not want to hear.

The Facts

The motion of rejection was rejected on June 23, 2026. Immediately afterward, MPs voted on an amendment excluding doctors from the "lethal act" provided for in the text: only "authorized healthcare professionals"—a category to be defined by decree—will be able to administer the lethal substance. This decision reveals a fundamental contradiction in the project: if the act is a form of care, why exclude the doctor? If it is not care, why present it as such?

François Bayrou, Prime Minister, sent a letter to the organizing collective of the June 28 demonstration in Paris, emphasizing that "the healthcare system's management of organized death" raises fundamental ethical questions that the text does not answer. The distancing is notable. It is not enough to stop the process.

The documentary film Anesthésia by Damien Boyer, released in theaters on June 24, 2026, offers a striking counterpoint: it shows patients in palliative care, accompanied to the end, whose faces belie the rhetoric of inevitable suffering. It is not an indictment but a testimony. Sometimes, that is more effective.

Doctrinal Analysis

The philosophical error of the text is long-standing. It consists of confusing compassion with the suppression of the suffering person. John Paul II identified it with a clarity that remains unchallenged: "Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains forever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end" (Evangelium Vitae, n. 53). This is not a religious opinion: it is the affirmation that life is not a property to be disposed of at will.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is direct: "Direct euthanasia, whatever its forms or motives, consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable" (CCC, n. 2277). The phrase "whatever its forms or motives" is crucial: it closes the door to all compassionate disguises.

The argument for excluding doctors, adopted by the Assembly itself, confirms what moral theology has known since Hippocrates: the medical act cannot be ordered toward the death of the patient. That the parliamentarians themselves recognized this incompatibility is an involuntary admission of the nature of the act they seek to legalize.

Stakes for the Church and the Faithful

The Church in France did not wait for this vote to take action. The bishops have repeatedly stressed the need to develop palliative care rather than organize death. The documentary Anesthésia illustrates what well-conducted care can offer: not the abolition of suffering, but presence, meaning, and accompaniment.

For the faithful, the question is also practical. The individual conscience clause provided in the text protects the doctor who refuses. It does not protect the Catholic institution. It does not protect the nurse who may be forced to participate in a process she deems contrary to her vocation. These blind spots are real. They deserve to be named.

Critical Reading and Blind Spots

The text presents a fundamental contradiction that even its supporters have not resolved: it claims to establish a "right to die" while excluding the profession whose mission is precisely to heal. A right without a designated holder is a legal fiction.

The citizen mobilization on June 23 shows that public opinion is not as supportive of the text as its proponents claim. But the street does not vote. And the parliamentary calendar moves forward.

The slippery slope effect must also be named. In the Netherlands, regulations have allowed euthanasia for children under 12 with incurable diseases since 2024. This is not an absurd argument: it is the internal logic of the principle, unfolding over time. When death is accepted as a form of care, no stable boundary is set.

To Reflect and Act

"The more vulnerable a person is, the greater our duty of solidarity toward them." This formulation, drawn from the parliamentary debates themselves by opponents of the text, is a natural truth that the Church did not invent. It has received and transmitted it.

Demonstrating in Paris on June 28 is a civic act. Supporting palliative care is an act of civilization. Naming the truth, without brutality but without euphemism, remains the primary duty of a Catholic engaged in the city.