France’s religious leaders united against "assisted dying"

French religious representatives were united in opposing the government’s proposed end-of-life bill during a roundtable with the bill’s special commission on April 24. The contents of the legislation, which would allow adults with terminal cancer or other incurable illness to take lethal medication, will be debated in parliament starting May 27.

A Unified Front

Present at the roundtable were Archbishop Vincent Jordy of Tours and Archbishop Pierre d'Ornellas of Rennes, who represented the Bishops' Conference of France (CEF). Joining them were Christian Krieger, president of the Protestant Federation of France (FPF), and Carol Saba, representing the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of France. Sadek Beloucif, an academic and medical professional, represented the Grand Mosque of Paris, while Antony Boussemart represented the Buddhist Union of France as its president. The Chief Rabbi of France, Haïm Korsia, was unable to attend.

According to their arguments, behind the phrase "assisted dying" is the possibility of euthanasia and assisted suicide. Archbishop Jordy said that the bill goes against the "French model" of care by breaking with its foundational prohibition against killing. This view was also emphasized by Saba, who highlighted the "civilizational rupture" induced by the bill. According to him, it exposes a "drift" towards an "ethics without transcendence."

"The notion of medical intention is essential, and active assistance in dying is tantamount to giving death," added Beloucif, urging the special commission to distinguish between "letting (people) die and making (them) die."

Numerous ambiguities

With the bill including phrases such as "unbearable suffering," "serious impairment of discernment," and requiring a patient’s prognosis to be "short- or medium-term", the representatives of the religious groups all highlighted the ambiguity of certain expressions contained in the bill. These expressions included the criteria for the law, as well as the phrase "assisted dying," frequently used by the government. All called for the development of palliative care and emphasized that the framework provided by the current law was already sufficient, but needed to be fully implemented.

Beloucif described the forthcoming law as "inopportune." Archbishop d'Ornellas urged government representatives to pursue "practical wisdom" rather than seek to resolve every situation through law. "No law can ever address the multiplicity of situations," Christian Krieger added. The Catholic bishops also pointed out the risk of a foreseeable expansion of the conditions for accessing “assisted dying.”

Detrimental social consequences

The religious representatives unanimously noted the detrimental social consequences that the current bill could present. Archbishop Jordy, citing examples from other countries like Canada, warned about the economic motivations behind such a bill, from a utilitarian perspective: "they will push out the vulnerable," he predicted. Beloucif highlighted a possible "peril in national cohesion," and Antony Boussemart expressed concern over the "weakening of familial and communal bonds by encouraging an individualistic vision of end of life."

During the question period, Deputy Caroline Fiat expressed "not (her) disagreement, but (her) incomprehension regarding these religious convictions." Her statement encapsulates the difficulties the religious representatives encountered in getting their point across to the parliamentarians.