Anyone who carefully reads the proposed law on “aid in dying” should find it impossible to support. In order to open people’s eyes and minds to the repercussions of this text, I have compiled a list of 27 serious problems with this proposed law.

Each of these problems should be sufficient to convince members of the National Assembly to reject the bill and the Constitutional Council to strike it down.

This bill affects each of us. If the bill passes, we will all have at least one loved one who will die in this way. Our inherent human dignity from our first to final breath is at stake!

This bill is radical. Not only in its conditions for accessing death, but even more so in its euthanasia procedure—which final decision is entirely at the discretion of a doctor and made with limited oversight.

Here are the 27 serious problems identified in the proposed law “on the right to aid in dying”:

1. A single physician decides on the entire euthanasia procedure (Art. 5 and 6).
2. The law does not demand any formal requirements regarding the expression of the wish to die; the request may be in writing or “by any other means of expression appropriate to the person’s abilities” (Art. 5, III).
3. In practice, the doctor’s affirmation of the patient’s wish to die is sufficient. No witness is required to attest to the authenticity of such a request. In each case, the doctor meets with the person concerned alone (Arts. 5, 6, and 7).
4. The physician may meet the requesting person for the first time on the day of the “request” to die and does not need to be the person’s primary care physician (Art. 5).
5. Euthanasia is permitted for individuals under guardianship or conservatorship or for those whose judgment is impaired (Art. 5).
6. As long as their judgment is not “seriously” impaired, the person can be presumed to be expressing their request for death (Art. 6, I).
7. A person with a serious mental disorder, such as suicidal tendencies, is not excluded from the process (Art. 4, para. 4).
8. It is not necessary for the patient to be terminally ill; a person who still has many years to live may obtain assisted dying (Art. 4, para. 3).
9. The person does not have a “right” to palliative care, which is largely unavailable in France.
10. The physician consults with two individuals of their choice: a physician and either a medical assistant or a nursing aide who may be under the physician’s supervisory authority (Art. 6, II).
11. The consultation with these two individuals may be conducted via video conference without ever having met the applicant or verified the validity of their request for aid in dying (Art. 6, II).
12. Even if a person under guardianship or conservatorship requests that a family member be consulted, the physician may refuse (Art. 6, II, para. 4).
13. The physician may make a final decision immediately after the consultation (Art. 6, III).
14. The physician is not required to examine the applicant a second time (Art. 6, IV and V).
15. The requesting person’s reflection period is only two days from the physician’s decision (Art. 6, IV).
16. Potentially, the entire process could be completed in three days.
17. The requesting person’s relatives do not have the right to be informed that an euthanasia procedure is underway (Art. 6, II, para. 4 and Art. 7).
18. Relatives do not have the right to challenge the physician’s decision in court (Art. 12).
19. The physician or nurse must ensure that the person’s family and friends do not exert any pressure to make the person “withdraw their request for the administration of the lethal substance” (Art. 9, I).
20. The requesting person is informed “of how the lethal substance works” only after confirming their request to die (Art. 6, V).
21. Conscientious objectors who refuse to perform euthanasia are required to designate another physician who agrees to perform euthanasia in their place (Art. 14).
22. Private institutions, particularly religious ones, even if all their staff are conscientious objectors, are required to accommodate mobile euthanasia teams and to allow euthanasia for their residents and patients under penalty of prosecution and administrative and financial sanctions (Art. 14).
23. Pharmacists are denied a conscience clause and are required to prepare the lethal medication under penalty of disciplinary sanctions (Art. 8 and 14).
24. Amendments aimed at separating euthanasia procedures from organ procurement procedures were all rejected (for example, Amendment No. 547).
25. The “review” of the process is conducted after death based solely on information provided by the physician (Art. 11 and 15).
26. The “review” is conducted by a commission composed of four members from associations and professionals in the humanities and social sciences, two physicians, and only two judges (Art. 15 IV).
27. The entire cost of the procedure, including fees and compensation, is covered by Social Security (Art. 18).

In addition, the following realities must be taken into account:

• 10% of French people are on antidepressants.
• 1,000,000 French people are eligible for this procedure according to the French Society for Support and Palliative Care (SFAP).
• About twenty departments have no palliative care units, and less than half of the need for palliative care is currently being met. Furthermore, this coverage will decrease in proportion to the aging of the population.
• Legalizing assisted dying will save approximately 1.4 billion euros per year in healthcare, elderly care, and retirement costs (Fondapol estimate, 2025).

As you can see, the so-called “freedom to die” that this law establishes will also—and above all—be a “right to kill.” The law will be virtually impossible to challenge and to bring justice for all the abuses that this procedure is bound to facilitate and multiply.

People who are senile, bedridden, or mentally impaired are particularly at risk under this bill. If passed, the bill will make it possible to eliminate them.

There is still time to oppose this bill and to alert our loved ones and elected officials.