Assisted dying: "The abuses occur when the law is not there"

The former Rhône MP, a doctor, and longtime activist for the right to die with dignity, reacts to the National Assembly's adoption at first reading of a historic bill on assisted dying. For Jean-Louis Touraine, this progress, although still tentative, could put an end to French hypocrisy regarding end-of-life issues.

Read also: Law on assisted dying: votes of the Rhône deputies

Jean-Louis Touraine made no secret of his satisfaction after the vote on May 27, 2025, which saw the National Assembly adopt a bill establishing the right to assisted dying for the first time. " I was impatient ," he confided. " It's important to remember that the first bill on the subject dates back to Senator Henri Caillavet, more than 45 years ago. " For this committed doctor, France has fallen significantly behind its European neighbors: " All the other democracies around us had already legislated. In France, we die badly, we end our days badly. "

Touraine, who has seen many patients " end their days in pitiful conditions ," emphasizes how inadequate the current system remains. He still deplores the legacy of " medical omnipotence " where patients had no say in the matter. But according to him, things are changing: " We must listen to the patient's requests and give them the right to choose freely. "

Read also: Inside the palliative care of Lyon Sud Hospital

While he welcomes the Assembly's vote, Jean-Louis Touraine regrets that the text was, in his opinion, " too cautious ." He points out in particular the setbacks made after the examination by the Social Affairs Committee. " After the committee, it was decided that it was the patient who chose their end-of-life modality—either by administering the product themselves or by asking a doctor to do so. This has been removed ," he explains.

The former MP points out that in Belgium, " 95% of patients choose to have a caregiver administer the product, in particular to avoid making their family feel guilty ." According to him, not offering this option in the current French law is " a shame " and contrary to the spirit of the text, which is based on the patient's freedom.

Despite the uncertainties surrounding the passage of the text in the Senate, Jean-Louis Touraine remains hopeful: " Our senator friends, reputed to be more conservative, understand the majority of the importance of moving forward. " And he warns: " The abuses are not in Belgium, Switzerland, Luxembourg or the Netherlands. They are in France, with between 1,000 and 4,000 clandestine euthanasias each year. " For him, the legal framework is the best guarantee against abuse: "The abuses do not exist with the law. The abuses are when the law is not there."

Read also: Documentary: “Alive”, at the heart of a palliative care unit

The full transcript of the show with Jean-Louis Touraine:

Hello everyone, welcome to the 6 Minutes Chrono program, the daily meeting of the Lyon Capitale editorial team. Today, we're going to talk about aid in dying, assisted suicide, since on May 27, 2025, for the first time in France, the National Assembly adopted a bill establishing a right to aid in dying under certain conditions. To discuss this, we welcome Jean-Louis Touraine, doctor, former MP for the Rhône for more than 15 years, and member of the Association for the Right to Die with Dignity. Hello Jean-Louis Touraine. Thank you for coming to our set. We're going to get to the heart of the matter. How did you react to the announcement of the vote on this bill in the National Assembly? It's in first reading, the text will go to the Senate. How did you receive this announcement?

With great satisfaction. I was impatient. Some time ago, I wrote a book, with a chapter entitled "A Law in Perpetual Gestation ." It must be remembered that the first bill on the subject dates back to Senator Henri Caillavet, who proposed it more than 45 years ago. So it was a very long gestation period. And above all, all the other democracies around us had already legislated. France was among the last not to have a law. So the opinion was quite widespread: in France, we die badly, we end our days badly. As a doctor, I have seen, for very serious illnesses, a certain number of patients end their days in pitiful conditions. Things are not organized for a humane, decent end of life, especially one that listens to the sick. You know, until the beginning of this century, there was a form of medical omnipotence: those being treated were under the control of the caregivers, they obeyed, and they were told how to take a particular treatment, without them having a choice.

Was this before the Leonetti law, which prevents therapeutic obstinacy?

Even before the Kouchner law of 2002, which allowed patients to say, for example after 12 chemotherapy treatments: "I don't want the 13th treatment, I can't take it anymore. In any case, to give myself a pitiful week of survival, I don't want it." Little by little, this idea was introduced: we must listen to the patient's request and give them the right to choose freely. And all choices are respectable, whether it's the one who wants to wait for the so-called natural end, the one who wants sedation, or the one who wants assisted suicide. All these modalities must be left to the patient's sole choice, not the doctor's, not the family's, nor any other civil or religious authority. It is the patient himself who must decide what he can or cannot endure.

And in your opinion, is this text cautious enough? Because we're dealing with an important moment in life—that is, death—but the legislator must have a shaky hand, as they often say. Has there been this prudence, these safeguards, which will help avoid excesses and respect the patient's freedom?

You might even say there was more than caution.

Is it true, he was too careful for you?

I think so. On all these issues, there is in France, singularly, a certain reluctance towards progress. I was rapporteur for the bioethics law, and I have already had to fight a lot of resistance, particularly from those I call ultratraditionalists, who are afraid of any progress.

We saw that it was a little more complex in the public debate, with ministers—certainly right-wing—but also other centrists. It was more complex than just religious figures, sometimes groups...

Of course, you're right. The religious... The newspaper La Croix conducted a survey that shows that more than 70% of the Catholic faithful are in favor of this development. Among the hierarchy, they are much fewer, but among the faithful... It's the same among doctors. It was said that doctors were hesitant because they had been trained to give life and not to accompany death. It turns out that, in the latest survey, 74% of doctors are in favor. We can clearly see that this is a consensual idea. But in our country, decision-makers tend to lag behind the evolving ideas of our fellow citizens.

You would have gone further. There are currently five conditions. I invite all viewers to consult them directly on the Vie publique website. What would you have changed, for example?

I would have stayed at the level of what was voted on in the Social Affairs Committee of the National Assembly, which was a very good law, and which was somewhat similar to what has been well tested for over 20 years in Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, etc., and whose limits and boundaries are well known. This Commission proposal was very good. There, there has been a slight step backward. For example, I'll give you an example: after the Commission, it was decided that it was the patient who chose their end-of-life modality – either by administering the product themselves, or by asking a doctor to do so. This was withdrawn. And so, all patients capable of taking a lethal product would have to do so themselves under these new conditions, and only those who are totally paralyzed will have support. This is a shame on two counts. First, the inspiration behind this law is to give freedom to patients. So if we give them freedom, we also give them the freedom to choose the method. However, it turns out that when people have the choice – as in Belgium – 95% of them choose to have it administered by a caregiver, and not to do it themselves, for ten thousand reasons, including to give the impression that it's a collective decision, and not just an individual one. This makes the family feel much less guilty.

Okay, I understand. We're already nearing the end of the 6-minute time limit ; it's always too short. Simply put, in a word: are you hopeful that the text, when it's presented to the Senate and then again to the National Assembly, will pass, that it will go all the way? You've talked about it; it's a text in the making. Do you think it will pass this time?

I think that in the Senate, our senator friends, often reputed to be a little more conservative on this subject, mostly understand the importance of moving forward. A bill was already debated a few years ago in the Senate, which received a lot of support. But it's uncertain. Indeed, uncertain. There may still be some setbacks to reassure the senators. But you know, abuses don't exist with the law. Abuses occur when the law isn't there. The abuses today aren't in Belgium, Switzerland, Luxembourg, or the Netherlands. They're in France. In France, there are between 1,000 and 4,000 clandestine euthanasias each year, in poor conditions: the wrong products, the wrong people, and sometimes with terrible suffering. So, we know that the best way to prevent abuses is to regulate the actions.

All right, that's the final word. Thank you very much, Jean-Louis Touraine, for joining us. As for you, thank you for watching this show. More details on the website lyoncapitale.fr. See you soon.