Following the publication in our previous issue of an article in support of the bill on "assisted dying," some comrades wanted to revisit the anti-ableist critiques of this bill and their connection to libertarian communist ideas. ---- A debate has been raging for several months across the revolutionary left regarding the bill put forward by the Macron government concerning end-of-life care. Having been involved for several months in support of the anti-ableist organizations opposing it[1], we were surprised, even shocked, by some of the arguments found in an article published last month by Alternative libertaire[2].
Suicide as a Social Fact
We felt that this article presented a very depoliticizing view of the question of death, and even more so of suicide, reducing these issues to "individual" and "intimate" matters. We advocate a radically different perspective: our deaths are political, and our suicides are the result of collective social mechanisms, products of a world we fight against.
From Durkheim's work[3]to modern sociological studies, all research demonstrates that suicide is not a private matter, but the product of social determinants: suicide is three times more prevalent among salaried employees and manual laborers than among managers. It is also significantly more common among LGBTQ+ individuals and people of color[4]... The relationship to death is not a neutral subject, impervious to social realities: facilitating access to suicide is, above all, facilitating the death of the most vulnerable and discriminated against.
This analysis is sometimes denounced as almost conspiratorial: anti-ableist activists are supposedly wrong to see the end-of-life law as a mechanism that pushes some people to their deaths more than others. But they are only reporting a material and statistical reality, as when we say that raising the retirement age means workers die younger. Similarly, when it is pointed out that, given the state of the public hospital system-with waiting times of up to eight months for treatment at a pain clinic[5]-access to assisted suicide will create a violent social sorting, it seems to us that there is nothing fanciful about it.
Suicide prevention is not accessible to people with disabilities. For example, the 3114 (national suicide prevention hotline) is not accessible to deaf or mute people.
Not Dead Yet
Unequal in life as in death
Yet, among the arguments put forward, we find that of equality: given the high costs of assisted suicide or euthanasia abroad, the end-of-life law would be an egalitarian step forward. This would be to limit our thinking to the current situation: the dilemma of a lack of palliative care will, in reality, only affect the working classes, subjected to the failings of a public healthcare system on its last legs. For the wealthiest, there's no need to worry; private care centers will always be available to treat the suffering of those who can afford to pay to prolong their lives in comfort, without delay. In truth, inequality will not be erased, but simply displaced: in a capitalist world, there is no more freedom in death than there is in life. But in life, at least, it is possible to continue our struggles. We refuse to call being offered a premature death as an escape from this system "emancipation."
Elisa Rojas, *To Die, Press 1: How the Law on End-of-Life Care Inscribes Death in a Capitalist Logic*, Éditions du Détour, April 2026, 128 pages, EUR12.90.
Can we really claim that the legalization of assisted suicide, affecting only "a few thousand people[...]each year," generally elderly, is not a problem? The argument that portrays these "old men and women" as inevitable deaths instills a false sense of security and assumes that their lives matter less, while this population is very often abandoned and mistreated, particularly in nursing homes. To think that in a capitalist system, there is no contradiction between facilitating access to death and "giving up on caring for life" is to remain deaf to the primary reason for this law, which is to constantly reduce the cost of care, as the section of the law on palliative care is not even included in the budget. While it is possible to improve the living conditions of all without waiting for the ideal society, this struggle should take place within the framework of socialization and collective management of the health system and nursing homes, not within that of a liberal and individualistic bill.
It is not without reason that anti-ableist groups unanimously criticize this law. In their circles, death is not a theoretical concept, but a constant reality, their struggle punctuated by the regular deaths of comrades, taken by their illnesses, medical violence, and the abandonment of any genuine accessibility policy. When anti-ableist activists express their fear of being affected by the eligibility criteria for "assisted dying" or their concerns about the precarious balance with suicide prevention, these are not theoretical speculations, but very concrete anxieties about their ability to continue their fight in a world that will encourage them to lay down their arms permanently. Choosing to ignore these voices is inconceivable to us as libertarians.
The documentary *Better Off Dead?* by Liz Carr denounces the ableist nature of euthanasia and assisted suicide laws in an Anglo-Saxon context. Available on the CLHEE YouTube channel.
The idea that the opinion of anti-ableist groups is a mere detail in the debate, because they represent only a minority of those affected by the end-of-life law, is absurd to us. Yes, everyone has a chance of being affected by this law one day: but precisely because everyone can one day become disabled! And this is precisely the strength of anti-ableist perspectives: refusing to think of disability as an individual fact, whether caused by illness, accident, or old age. By contrasting it with a social vision, as a reality constructed by our societies, they highlight a major fact: disability as a social fact radically alters the perspective of those who experience it. Thus, while everyone can one day be affected by disability, for an able-bodied person, this change in social position will inevitably put many things into perspective. Listening to the anti-ableist consensus against the end-of-life law as an able-bodied person demonstrates humility in the face of a situation one does not experience. Claiming that wanting to die when living with a disability is an acceptable act of ableist violence is an intolerable form of ableist violence.
Emancipation will be collective or it will not exist.
For us, to say that, as libertarians, "the DNA of our movement[is]choosing free will" is to defend an individualistic and liberal vision of anarchism. As libertarian communists, we believe, on the contrary, that the DNA of our movement lies in its collective dimension and its roots in class struggles. We believe that freedom is not decreed by laws, but is built collectively in our struggles, by transforming our material realities. And it is precisely because we are aware of the radical and profound material changes that would allow for genuine freedom to choose one's death that we oppose the end-of-life law. Because in an ultra-liberal context and one of advanced fascism, we believe it will cost our social group more than it will benefit a few individuals. Because we will not accept the cynical proposal of a liberal and austerity-driven government that, refusing to help us live, offers us "assisted dying."
UCL Alsace
Submit
[1]On the anti-ableist opposition to the bill, see the open letter from the Anti-Ableist Left Front published on May 22, 2025, on the Mediapart Club, or the interview "Odile Maurin: 'Will the choice to die truly be free?'"[1]Alternative libertaire no. 362, July-August 2025.
[2]"Living one's life, choosing one's death," Alternative libertaire no. 370, April 2026.
[3]Émile Durkheim, Suicide: A Sociological Study, 1987.
[4]Figures from the two most recent reports of the National Suicide Observatory, published by the DREES, on February 25, 2025, and January 29, 2026.
[5]Several accounts show that this delay can be up to two years, when requests are not simply refused. Figures cited from the French National Authority for Health, "Healthcare Pathway of a Person Experiencing Pain"
https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/?Debats-Nos-morts-sont-politiques
_________________________________________
Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten