End-of-life referendum: "Macron wanted to put pressure on the senators"

Until May 27, MPs will study the text on the end of life in the National Assembly, which divides politicians of all sides, left and right: more than 2,600 amendments have already been tabled since the presentation of the original bill on "support for the sick and the end of life" (adults only), presented on April 10, 2024. Its examination had been interrupted by the dissolution of Parliament wanted by Emmanuel Macron and only resumed last Monday! The latest version to date comes from the Les Démocrates MP Olivier Falorni, before François Bayrou, on January 21, 2025, decided to split the text in two, separating palliative care from the end of life (assisted dying) . However, work continues at the Palais Bourbon. So, why did the head of state mention submitting this highly sensitive issue to the French people by referendum (when they are concerned about many other issues)? Yohan Brossard, Secretary General of ADMD, the Association for the Right to Die with Dignity , answers our questions.

"A threat aimed at MPs and especially senators"

Planet.fr: What do you think of this statement by the President regarding the possibility of a referendum on the end of life?

Yohan Brossard: He reaffirmed his desire to see a text passed. This is something he had already done several times, but it didn't stop him from dissolving the Assembly eight days before the first vote... He's not ruling out holding a referendum if the text gets bogged down in Parliament, that's what he's saying. This is actually a message sent to the Senate. Because his fear is that the Senate will block the text, take time to put it on the agenda, or even win to prevent it from being voted on before the end of the five-year term. The Senate can also amend it so that the text is reworked each time in the National Assembly, so that this "ping-pong" game drags on.

Planet.fr: Is this a way for Emmanuel Macron to show authority when he doesn't have a majority, even if he supports the text?

Yohan Brossard: My interpretation is that this referendum is a threat to the MPs and especially the senators to ensure the bill passes. But he could have done better. By asking his government to implement an accelerated procedure. This would have allowed both chambers to express their views, convene a joint committee, and enact the law within a few weeks. Even without a majority, I believe it should have been his duty to ask his Prime Minister, whom he himself chose, to facilitate things.

Planet.fr: Catherine Vautrin (French Minister of Labor, Health, Solidarity, and Families) insisted on Monday on dissociating assisted dying from assisted suicide. What's the difference?

Yohan Brossard: This text now provides for the sick person's free choice to perform "the act" themselves or to entrust it to a caregiver. Since the text was released 10 days ago by the Social Affairs Committee, assisted dying has included both terms. This choice was not initially planned but was added by the commissioners with the wise advice of rapporteur general Olivier Falorni. Ms. Vautrin was not in favor of it and announced on Monday that she had tabled an amendment on behalf of the government to return to the original formula. Assisted suicide (or "self-administration") was the only option, except in cases of physical impossibility. Only in this case was it still possible to call upon a third party. We call this "the euthanasia exception."

Planet.fr: In fact, the government doesn't want the word "euthanasia"?

Yohan Brossard: Honestly, it's all just a matter of semantics. The possibility of freely choosing between self-administration and the administration of a lethal product by a third party is a problem for Catherine Vautrin, who would like the former to remain the rule and the latter to remain exceptional .

Planet.fr: However, with the increase in disabling illnesses due to old age, the demand for third-party administration can only increase?

Yohan Brossard: Yes, but be careful, the person must be able to make the request in a "free and informed" manner and, above all, it must be repeated. That's the procedure. There are diseases that are in fact excluded (Alzheimer's and other pathologies), because discernment is required. And there are also accidents of life that occur and are excluded from the system (for example: the case of Vincent Humbert, quadriplegic, blind and mute after a road accident, editor's note).

Planet.fr: What do you recommend to ensure that assisted dying is permitted in other cases?

Yohan Brossard: We are asking that advance directives be integrated into the procedure. Someone who no longer has the capacity to express themselves would then have a document clearly explaining that they do not wish to benefit from assisted dying in a given case. This exists in Belgium and Canada (it's called a "end-of-life will" there, and you have a duty to complete this document). In our country, it was excluded by the deputies.

Planet.fr: And palliative care was brought back to the forefront by François Bayrou , who was the one who split the two texts (see introduction).

Yohan Brossard: It's not because he thinks it's better for France. He is fiercely opposed to assisted dying because he follows his religious, Catholic convictions. For him to put them before the good of the nation is a bit much... I have doubts about the separation of these two texts, which are complementary and intimately linked. In Canada, eight out of ten assisted deaths are linked to palliative care; in Belgium, it's one in two euthanasias. It's a purely personal maneuver.

Planet.fr: When some people say that doctors are against it, is that true?

Yohan Brossard: That's completely false, because it's always the same people on TV, linked to the French Catholic Association for Palliative Care and Support. We asked Ifop to conduct a survey of general practitioners for the ADMD : 74% are in favor!