As the bill on euthanasia and assisted suicide continues its parliamentary journey, comrades revisit the debate surrounding this text, which is stirring up libertarian discussions, between demands for individual freedom and anti-ableist critiques. ---- It is likely that the tortuous legislative path of the bill on assisted dying will lead to its final adoption this year. In this context, it seemed necessary to revisit a debate already discussed several times within Alternative libertaire[1], offering a contrasting perspective to those already expressed in these pages.
We are clear-sighted about the political context in which this law is being proposed, the announcement of which by a president nearing the end of his term does not conceal the dismantling of public health services endorsed by the 2026 Social Security budget bill[2].
The state of the public hospital system threatens the conditions for receiving care. Access to palliative care is very unevenly distributed across the country, and specialized facilities are lacking[3]. These are some objective observations echoed by those who oppose the law on assisted suicide. We share them.
Caption: Advocating for the right to euthanasia and assisted suicide necessarily involves demands concerning health and palliative care.
Credit: The Death of Géricault, by Ary Scheffer Louvre Museum
A different rhetoric is added to these observations; our capitalist society is said to be concealing, under this law, a desire to drive people with disabilities, the elderly, etc., to suicide. We reject this dystopia; the structural neglect linked to the lack of resources in the healthcare system must be distinguished from any malicious intent driven by a eugenic objective. Access to assisted suicide, on the contrary, seems to us a vehicle for emancipation and autonomy.
Deconstructing the myths surrounding the bill on assisted dying
First, let us remember that this bill concerns society as a whole: all of us, living, will die. As this law currently stands, it is strictly intended for people suffering from incurable illnesses who do not want a painful end of life; it does not only concern people currently living with a visible or invisible, physical or mental disability: everyone is or will be ill, everyone will be faced with choices regarding their own mortality. While we acknowledge the reasons for the fears expressed by some anti-ableist groups, an interpretation solely through this lens would be limiting.
The Clayes-Leonetti Law of February 2, 2016, currently the only reference text for end-of-life care, proposes three ways to support a patient in death, provided they are suffering unbearably and their death is recognized as inevitable and imminent: withholding treatment (not resuscitating, not hydrating, not feeding), analgesia (deep sedation), and limiting or stopping treatment "when it appears futile, disproportionate, or has no other effect than the artificial maintenance of life." Apart from sedation, which aims to relieve physical pain, the current legal framework therefore only addresses withholding treatment.
The bill on assisted dying proposes adding two options to this range: assisted suicide (the patient self-administers the lethal substance), intended to cover the majority of cases, and euthanasia (an authorized person administers the lethal substance), an exceptional measure when the patient is physically unable to perform this act. It is worth noting that these two scenarios are already part of the reality of the French medical landscape: the aim here is to guarantee equal access to assisted suicide and to legalize the actions of patients, families, and doctors who decide to resort to it in the privacy and trust of their mutual relationship.
Every year, French citizens cross borders to access assisted suicide in neighboring countries: more than one hundred in Belgium in 2023, and at least 600 people in Switzerland between 1998 and 2024[4]. Knowledge of this system, the financial investment, the logistical capabilities required, the need to benefit from a supportive environment to organize this project are unfair and discriminatory conditions: it seems desirable to us that the entire population potentially wishing to resort to assisted suicide should have access to it and that it should be taken care of by the public health system[5].
The figures available in countries where this practice is legal show that only a few thousand people resort to it each year, representing 3 to 5.8% of annual deaths[6]. Their average age is over 70, and the requests are mostly due to incurable cancers and severe, recalcitrant neurodegenerative diseases. The legalization of assisted suicide has not been accompanied by a surge in applications but responds to a societal demand concerning a minority of individuals.
A Libertarian Communist Position on Death
We approve of the law on end-of-life care, and our thinking goes further. In the libertarian communist conception, there is neither a sacred law nor a universal moral law whose scope transcends eras and cultures. Do we recognize that our life, and its counterpart, our death, belong to us? Do we recognize the individual freedom to determine the time and conditions of our death? This goes beyond the question of the quality of care; loss of autonomy is a subjective and evolving concept, and one may not even want to be cared for at all. The issues of physical suffering and individual freedom, beyond the healthcare system and those close to the person, are profoundly personal.
Supporting this bill commits us to promoting the maintenance and improvement of public health services, and more broadly, the public and shared management of basic needs (health, housing, education, old age, etc.). Giving people access to death does not take anything away from the living; giving everyone the possibility of choosing the conditions of their death does not imply abandoning the care of life. The libertarian movement has, and must maintain, a unique place in the debate on this issue; we cannot forget the core of our movement, which is to choose free will in the face of determinism, whether religious, ideological, or governmental. We will not wait for the hypothetical framework of an ideal society to make our own choices; the revolutionary project, a long-term vision, must not prevent us from pursuing an achievable short-term goal: giving everyone the choice of how they die.
Léda, Léa, Michael, and Santo (UCL Montreuil)
Submit
[1]See "Bill on Euthanasia: A Dignified Death After an Undignified Life?", Alternative libertaire no. 344, December 2023, and "Odile Maurin (Handi-social): 'Will the Choice to Die Truly Be Free?'", Alternative libertaire no. 362, Summer 2025.
[2]The 2027 social security budget aims for savings of EUR7.1 billion through measures requiring efforts from both healthcare professionals and insured individuals.
[3]Data on palliative care makes it difficult to establish reliable statistics. It should be noted that in 2024, 21 French departments still did not have a palliative care unit. The Court of Auditors estimated in 2023 that only half of those eligible for palliative care actually received it.
[4]The costs incurred for assisted suicide abroad are estimated at between EUR1,500 and EUR2,500 in Belgium, and between EUR7,000 and EUR11,000 in Switzerland.
[5]Citizen groups have been raising this voice for a long time: Ultime Liberté, ADMD, Le Choix... We should also recall the thought-provoking episode of Pieds sur terre, "Barbiturates and Old Lace," France Culture, November 2022.
[6]See the document "Euthanasia, Assisted Suicide... Data on the Different Forms of Assistance in Dying Worldwide," published by the National Center for End-of-Life and Palliative Care on its website.
https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/?Debats-Vivre-sa-vie-choisir-sa-mort
_________________________________________
Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten