The letter signed by the Prime Minister, Elisabeth Borne, finally arrived on Sunday, October 9 at the Economic, Social and Environmental Council (CESE). At the Palais d’Iéna, we watched the “official referral” of Matignon supposed to settle “the who, the what, the how and the articulation between the actors”, while the ESEC began its work on a citizens’ convention on the end of life on September 29, at the request of Emmanuel Macron.
First object of the letter from Matignon: to state the question posed to the convention. The 150 people selected at random who will begin their work on December 9 will have to answer this question: “Is the end-of-life support framework adapted to the different situations encountered or should any changes be introduced? »
The wording of the question gave rise to discussions between the executive, the CESE and the National Consultative Ethics Committee. A first version of the question referred to “individual situations encountered”.
The epithet “individual” has disappeared. This is not enough to guarantee the neutrality of the question, believe some. “This language precaution does not change anything at the root of the problem., reacts Erwan Le Morhedec, author of End of life in the Republic (Cerf, 206 pages, 18 euros). To ask whether the current framework responds to all situations is to infer that the law does not respond. This leads to the consideration that the answer will be to authorize giving oneself or administering death. » For this volunteer in a palliative care unit in Paris, the question is “biased”.
Prevent telescoping
“We must recognize that by asking whether the current law responds to all situations, we induce the response”, observes Jean-Luc Romero-Michel, honorary president of the Association for the right to die with dignity. But this influential figure of the partisans of an evolution of the law is delighted. “You just have to follow the news to see clearly that the law is indeed not adapted to all situations and that a new one must therefore be passed. »
The wording of the question shows that the government “understood that he had to give up part of his neutrality”, continues Mr. Romero-Michel. According to him, “Emmanuel Macron is aware that he must give signs in the face of a National Assembly that is mostly won over to a change in the law, not to mention the opposition ready to seize the subject…”
At the Economic, Social and Environmental Council (CESE), it is estimated on the contrary that “the question posed does not confine citizens to the answer which consists in saying that we must evolve. The word “individual” was dropped for the sake of preventing the convention from focusing on too specific cases. »
You have 41.61% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.