Lhe debates on active assistance in dying are clouded by numerous imprecisions in language, which are sources of confusion. This problem is frequent when the controversy relates to subjects touching on the most intimate part of ourselves, such as that of our death: the arguments deployed are as much a matter of an objective reflexive analysis as of convictions linked to our personal experiences, our representations and our fears.
In The world dated May 13, Martine Lombard publishes a column entitled “For the recognition of the freedom to die”. This title implies that this individual freedom does not exist: however, in France, since the Revolution, suicide is no longer repressed, making effective the freedom to die. A title such as “For the recognition of the freedom to be assisted in dying at the end of life” would be closer to the true subject of the article. The Association for the Right to Die with Dignity has accustomed us to this process: the name of their association suggests that only assisted suicide or euthanasia can achieve a dignified death. Which is very unfair for the majority of our fellow citizens who take a path, just as worthy by the courage it requires, that of leaving supported by their caregivers and loved ones.
The essential argument for creating a new law concerning active assistance in dying is that people at the end of life no longer have the physical capacity to ensure their suicide. The violence of suicide is twofold. First, there is the moral one of deciding to kill oneself, which relieves another form of violence, that of suffering refractory and unbearable suffering at the end of life. All the experts, for or against assisted suicide, agree to bring relief to patients suffering at the end of life. This is what the Claeys-Leonetti law of 2016 wanted to make possible, by creating the right to receive deep and continuous sedation until death.
Psychological repercussions
Associated with the cessation of all other treatments, except analgesics, and the cessation of hydration and food, it causes the death of the patient within a few days. For this to be possible, the patient must be suffering from an incurable disease with refractory suffering and a short-term vital prognosis. However, the recommendations of the High Authority for Health (HAS) define a prognosis committed in the short term by a life expectancy of a few hours or a few days, considerably reducing the scope of this new right. A redefinition of the conditions of application of the right to deep and continuous sedation until death could make it possible to avoid creating a new law.
You have 60.23% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.