Euthanasia bill: “Conscientious objection for religious institutions is a fundamental right”

The government has announced that the aid in dying bill will be placed on the Assembly's agenda in February 2026, subject to a prior vote in the Senate. As it stands now, the bill would impose a legal obligation on all health and medical-social institutions to allow this practice within their walls. Several Catholic congregations responsible for such institutions denounce this obligation as a serious violation of their freedom of religion. They are supported by human rights lawyers.

Op-Ed originally published in French on Le Figaro Vox.

For centuries, Catholic orders and congregations have practiced the “aid in dying” as taught by Christ, respecting the inalienable ontological dignity of every human being. This consists in “helping to live” as death approaches, that is, to always provide relief, to show patients, through care, that their lives are precious regardless of their state of dependence or the stage of their illness, to accompany them with prayer or a simple presence until their natural death, with all the skills that this requires.

For us, as managers of Catholic health and medical-social establishments, it is therefore inconceivable to participate in the euthanasia of those entrusted to our care, or to assist them in their suicide. This would be an attack on their lives, in complete contradiction with the well-being of patients, our raison d'être, and our faith. This is strictly impossible for us, not only because of our faith, but also out of respect for patients and medicine. In this, we join all caregivers who oppose these practices.

However, the bill examined by the Senate would oblige us to accept the practice of euthanasia and assisted suicide in our institutions, on the people entrusted to our care. This obligation would apply to all hospitals, clinics, nursing homes (EHPAD), shelters for people with disabilities or in emergency situations, etc., both public and private, including all religious institutions. The proposed law stipulates that “the person in charge of the facility or service is required to allow” the practice of euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Such an obligation would be an unbearable burden, as it would force us to personally collaborate with the practice of euthanasia and assisted suicide, making us accomplices. It would also harm all those who choose our institutions because they share our faith or know that we will respect their lives and those of their loved ones.

We want to remain faithful to the service of patients, to the therapeutic purpose of medicine, and to God.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly teaches that “an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator.” (No. 2277). As for voluntary cooperation in suicide, it “is contrary to the moral law” and “to the love for the living God.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, nos. 2280-2282)

If this bill were to be adopted, we would have no choice but to raise conscientious objection. We would then be offenders under the proposed law, guilty of “obstruction,” and liable to two years' imprisonment and a fine of €30,000. We would also be subject to sanctions by the Regional Health Agencies. This would be the most repressive legislation in the world in this area. No other country provides for criminal penalties against objecting institutions.

Such an obligation would therefore jeopardize our institutions and our raison d'être. That is why we urge that the specific nature of religious health and medical-social institutions be respected if this text is adopted, which God forbid. It is a matter of justice.

It is also a fundamental right. Respect for the specific nature of religious institutions is recognized by European and international human rights law, which protects our freedom to operate in accordance with our moral and religious convictions, “against any unjustified interference by the State.” The European Court of Human Rights has often emphasized that freedom of religion would be illusory without respect for this “principle of autonomy,” which results from the freedoms of association and religion. For freedom of religion is collective in nature and also protects communities and institutions based on adherence to a religion.

Furthermore, the right to conscientious objection is one aspect of freedom of religion. It consists of “protection against being compelled to act against one's sincere religious convictions,” according to the United Nations Human Rights Committee. However, as the chair of this committee, Sir Nigel Rodley, pointed out, “the right to refuse to kill must be accepted completely.” It would be unfair to provide a conscience clause only for certain healthcare professionals and to exclude institutions. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe reiterated this point in a 2010 resolution on “The right to conscientious objection in lawful medical care,” stating that “No person, hospital or institution shall be coerced, held liable or discriminated against in any manner because of a refusal to perform, accommodate, assist or submit to . . . the performance of a euthanasia or any act . . . for any reason."

No one should be forced, directly or indirectly, to kill or facilitate suicide. This is a fundamental right, and we demand that it be respected.

****

Signatories:

Religious institutions:

Sr. Maria del Monte Ruiz Garcia, Superior General of the Little Sisters of the Poor;

Sr. Marie-Anne Marot, Daughters of Saint Mary of Providence of Saintes;

Hugues Morel, President, and Edouard Petit, Director General of the Alliance Basile Moreau;

Sr. Clémence Sanon, Superior General of the Augustinian Sisters of the Mercy of Jesus;

Sr. Marie Thomas Fabre, Superior General of the Institute of the Little Sisters of Catholic Maternities, President of the Alliance of Catholic Maternities;

Sr. Marie-José Villain, Superior General of the Congregation of the Hospitaller Sisters of Saint Thomas of Villeneuve.

Human rights lawyers:

Tonio Borg, former European Commissioner for Health, Professor at the University of Malta;

Javier Borrego, former judge at the European Court of Human Rights and the Supreme Court of Spain;

Guillaume Drago, Professor at the University of Paris Panthéon-Assas;

Jean-Christophe Galloux, Professor at the University of Paris Panthéon-Assas, Member of the National Academy of Pharmacy;

Joël Hautebert, Associate Professor of Law;

Jean-Michel Lemoyne de Forges, Professor Emeritus at the University of Paris Panthéon-Assas;

Joël Benoît d'Onorio, Professor Emeritus at the University of Aix-Marseille, President of the Confederation of Catholic Lawyers;

Krzysztof Wojtyczek, Professor at Jagiellonian University in Krakow, former judge at the European Court of Human Rights;

Alfred de Zayas, former independent expert of the United Nations for the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order;

Grégor Puppinck, initiator of the forum. Director of the ECLJ, former member of the OSCE Panel of Experts on Freedom of Conscience and Religion.