Qhen the word “euthanasia” appears at the beginning of modern times, it designates a medical practice which strives by all possible means to shorten the suffering of a patient in agony in order to accompany them in death. That is to say, help to die and at the same time, confusingly, help to die well, with dignity. The difficulty doesn’t seem that great at first glance. And for two or three decades we have been launching and relaunching major national debates on the end of life. But there may not be room for debate. Unless you up the game. It is not enough to speak out for or against assisted suicide or state euthanasia to enter into a debate.
To be indignant in the name of great principles, what else is it except using authority and, out of laziness, avoiding giving arguments? The question is so mixed and delicate that we can only ask it honestly by shrinking from the mystery it envelops. Because the numerous contradictions it raises derive from the ambiguity of our own relationship to death, both feared and desired. And no one escapes it.
If the warrior dies in battle and, thus, “to fulfill the destiny of his life” (Iliad, canto IV, v. 104), will we ever know if he did not help destiny a little by defying the sword that struck him? As for the Christian who refrains from hastening the time of his return out of fidelity to God who sent him to Earth, will we never know if he has not involuntarily contributed to the execution of his individual death? Likewise, will we ever know the desires and fears of a sick person wanting to die if he himself ignores everything he expresses through his request?
A path already paved
The end of life is a dilemma before which morality is powerless. If politics had not guided the course of its reflections behind the scenes, morality would not have been able to change its mind to the point of conforming to the set goal. Not that any progress is desirable. But where each case is particular, jurisprudence is preferable to doctrine. Because only the doctor truly has a hand that trembles, as it is so difficult, as Paul Ricoeur writes, to hold the golden mean between “two temptations to do good: therapeutic relentlessness and euthanasia”. It is no small thing to give it up and consent to the lesser evil. The philosopher stops at the threshold and ends with “counsels of wisdom”. Not persisting in providing certain answers is sometimes the greatest proof of wisdom.
So here I am, embarrassed to accidentally enter into such a serious, big debate. The bill announced by the head of state on March 10 is questionable on many points. And they were rightly criticized. But if Emmanuel Macron is “fairly sure of the path” what the evolution of the text takes is that the path has already been paved. The line is straight and all we have to do is follow it: go further than the Claeys-Leonetti law of 2016, which went further than the Leonetti law of 2005, which went further than the Kouchner law of 2002 So we are on board. The head of state has made a personal conviction of the impulse he inherits. Such insurance gives him complete freedom over the schedule. He will respect parliamentary time and adjust to everyone’s pace. As he says, there was no emergency.
You have 46.43% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.