End of life law: these Côte d'Azur deputies voted against their political party
The end of life is a highly sensitive and personal social issue. It's a divisive issue. This was the case within the National Assembly, within the same parties.
On Tuesday, after two weeks of debate and more than 100 hours of speeches, MPs voted by a large majority in favour of creating a right to die, with 305 votes in favour and 199 against, with 57 abstentions.
A bill that is structured around two texts: one on palliative care, the other on assisted dying. It was on this second text that the results were much more mixed. It divided most political factions. And some MPs spoke out against the grain of their own political parties.
In the Alpes-Maritimes, Alexandra Masson (4th constituency) and Bryan Masson (6th) are among the 19 elected members of the National Rally (out of 120) who voted for the creation of a right to assisted dying, while the opposition was largely shared within their group.
Alexandra Masson (RN) voted for: "Being able to die with dignity is part of an evolved society""I'm a longtime euthanasia activist," confides MP Alexandra Masson. "It's an issue close to my heart, and it was actually the theme of my master's thesis in law. Being able to die with dignity is part of an evolved society, I deeply believe. And I thank Marine Le Pen and Jordan Bardella for giving us the opportunity to choose according to our conscience."
"Assisted dying is a personal issue that can be divisive. I only regret that those who are against this right are more proactive than those who are for it. In recent weeks, we have received a huge number of emails in our inboxes from MPs who were very hostile to assisted dying. This is a powerful lobby. And I know that this has made some of my colleagues, also within other groups, who might have voted for it, uncomfortable."
For his part, Bryan Masson voted in favor because of "human dignity" : "As death approaches, when treatments and palliative care can no longer relieve pain, we must consider human dignity." He added, however , "I would not have voted for this text alone. Here, it is accompanied by a text on the generalization of palliative care, which for me was an essential prerequisite for being able to grant this right to die with dignity."
These two positions remain in the minority within the National Rally. In the 2nd constituency, Lionel Tivoli voted against this assisted dying. He explains why: "There is already a law: the Claeys-Leonetti law, which addresses the most difficult situations, but it is insufficiently enforced due to a lack of training, information, resources, and access to palliative care. Before creating a right to die," he says, "the priority should be to guarantee an effective right to a supported end of life."
A position shared by the Republican MPs, who largely rejected this bill. Alexandra Martin, LR MP for the 8th constituency, chose to abstain. "I abstained on the assisted suicide section. I'm waiting to see how the law comes back from the Senate and the Joint Committee to mature my thinking and make a final decision. I also want to see what changes the law on palliative care will make. I've looked into this issue a lot; for a terminally ill person, when there is quality palliative care, the desire to die is less there."
Finally, the Union of the Right for the Republic voted unanimously for "no" by all 16 deputies. On the social network X, Éric Ciotti opened up about his choice: "The text on the end of life introduces a profound anthropological rupture by failing to address the immense suffering of people at the end of their lives. Half of French departments are deprived of palliative care services; that is the real tragedy and the real injustice."
Bernard Chaix, UDR MP for the 3rd constituency, also voted against the bill. But he appears less clear-cut than his leader on the issue: "I was not a priori opposed to the right to die in situations of extreme suffering. But my vote today is the result of in-depth reflection, which has evolved over the course of the debates. The citizen consultations I conducted both online and in the field expressed a strong expectation: to be able to choose one's end of life. But they also revealed a deep concern among healthcare professionals: that of not being legally protected, nor sufficiently supervised to support these extreme situations. And on this point, I am concerned by the notion of the offense of obstruction as it is written, which could restrict the freedom of expression and conscience of caregivers, helpers, and associations. I hope the Senate will be able to propose a fairer, more protective, more humane version. In which case, I will vote for it at second reading."
Var-Matin
