these five days of major maneuvers which agitated Parliament – ​​L’Express

It is difficult to anticipate the pitfalls that can arise during parliamentary debates, the sessions that flare up over a poorly chosen word, the postures that lead to uncontrollable one-upmanship. More than any other, the bill on “support for the sick and the end of life” was exposed to this risk. While the text must be examined in public session at the National Assembly from May 27, the executive had a foretaste of what awaits it during the work of the special commission which took place from May 13 to 17. During a busy week, the 71 members of the commission proved that they did not want to give in to excesses like in the past on marriage for all and that they were, in tune with public opinion, mainly in favor of an evolution of the Claeys-Leonetti law and the creation of “active assistance in dying”. The debate took place elsewhere, in the detail and practical modalities of this new law. Story of five days which marked the first act of a major societal revolution, establishing assisted suicide and euthanasia in law.

When the examination of the 21 articles of the government text begins, no one knows how the debate will turn out. More than 1,800 amendments were tabled, some widely opening the right to “assisted dying”, others emptying it of its substance. Between the position of the President of the Republic who seems to want to reserve the right to die for exceptional situations and does not want to offend the healthcare professions and that of the rapporteurs of the bill who, for some, in particular the MoDem deputy Olivier Falorni, in have an extensive vision, which way will the text swing? Catherine Vautrin, the Minister of Labor, Health and Solidarity, has said it again and again: the government proposal is a “balanced text” whose contours must be respected. The Horizons deputy, Agnès Firmin-Le Bodo, president of the special commission, is on the same line, she who very largely designed the project as minister until the beginning of 2024. Some articles, the writing of which will define the scope of the reform, are the subject of particular attention: the definition of active assistance in dying, its application criteria and its implementation methods.

For many months now, the government has been working to avoid the disaster scenario of a text which would offend part of public opinion too strongly and lead to further rifts in society. Emmanuel Macron asked the National Consultative Ethics Committee and the National Academy of Medicine for their opinion; the citizens’ convention on the end of life worked until April 2023. Once again, at the end of April, the special committee of the Assembly heard all the stakeholders. Doctors, philosophers, representatives of religions or patients… were able to reiterate their concerns or their hopes and send written contributions, or even ready-made proposals for amendments. Finally, to leave room for debate, the executive chose not to initiate the accelerated procedure, even if this meant that adoption would only be effective in eighteen months. But you never know?

Difficult to “read” the political balances

By mid-May, everyone is ready. The only unknown, and not the least important: the position of each parliamentarian on the different elements of the bill. On this highly sensitive text, where personal experience and convictions play a decisive role, the political groups have chosen to give their elected representatives the freedom to vote. Therefore, it is difficult to “read” the political balances at work in the commission as the choices are sometimes contrary to received ideas. Thus, at La France insoumise, with a few exceptions, support for the text is more than measured. On the National Rally side, the group is divided: behind Sébastien Chenu, some elected officials are in favor of the text while others are fiercely opposed to it. Surprising? A survey carried out in June 2023 by Ifop for the Association for the Right to Die with Dignity (ADMD) showed that 54% of RN supporters said they were in favor of a law authorizing assisted suicide and euthanasia under conditions. Only Renaissance voters were ahead of them (63%) while those of the PS (42%) and those of LFI (41%) were far behind.

In this configuration, the government is playing on quicksand. He must find a subtle balance between his right and his left. Upstream, when it was necessary to think about the favorable opinions given to certain amendments, some were done to ensure the goodwill of the left when the opponents of the text became too offensive, others to guarantee a contribution of right when the diehards of assisted dying would make themselves heard.

At 4 p.m. on May 13, the exam begins smoothly. The first part concerns the creation of supportive care. It is a question of guaranteed access to palliative care via an enforceable right. The government is not in favor of it. The precedent of the enforceable right to housing (Dalo) has demonstrated that in the absence of means, its scope is reduced. “The fact of creating a right does not generate the budgets that will move us forward,” retorts Minister of Health Catherine Vautrin. At the end of the first day, only 119 amendments had been considered. At this rate, the planned week will be insufficient, even if we sit from 9:30 a.m. to the end of the evening. We should speed up.

Impossible. An incident disturbs the debates. The members of the committee discovered that nearly 300 of their amendments had been declared inadmissible under Article 40, which prohibits parliamentary additions that degrade public finances. Many suspect a political gesture in this burst of articles 40: they relate to crucial points of the text and were decided by the LFI Eric Coquerel who chairs the Finance committee. Is this not a way for this party to torpedo any extension of active assistance in dying? Suspicion grew as Danielle Simonnet, elected LFI but a supporter of the text, added, upstream, a mention in her amendments protecting them from the ax of article 40.

On the morning of May 14, faced with the turmoil, Agnès Firmin-Le Bodo and Catherine Vautrin sought a solution. Above all, do not be accused of not having kept the President of the Republic’s commitment to an open debate. Above all, do not introduce the financial dimension into a subject that is above all societal, ethical and moral. An agreement is reached: the rapporteurs who are not bound by the deadlines for tabling amendments will re-submit amendments on key subjects, with the government committing to guarantee reimbursement of the acts in the final phase of adoption of the text. Tempers are calming down, but frustration remains among certain deputies who would have liked a more in-depth discussion.

When work resumed, Catherine Vautrin, already determined to sit as much as possible, obtained an exemption from the President of the Republic for the Council of Ministers on May 15, the schedule of which had been changed due to the crisis in New Caledonia. This is also the moment when the commission gets to the heart of the matter. To support its position, the ADMD is releasing a survey, carried out by Ifop from April 28 to May 2, with the explicit message: “92% of French people approve of euthanasia.” The figure is highlighted, even if 37% specify that they only approve “in certain cases”. Others get their messages across via forums in the press. The amendments purely and simply abolishing active assistance in dying are rejected. A clarification from the rapporteur Laurence Maillart-Méhaignerie is adopted regarding the close person who may be required to carry out the lethal gesture: they must be of age and cannot “receive any remuneration or gratification in any capacity whatsoever in return for their designation”. For the moment, most of the text is preserved, in particular the obligation for the patient to reiterate his wishes until the end.

It is on article 6 that the government stumbles. For weeks now, the debate has been growing around the third criterion used to access assistance in dying: “being suffering from a serious and incurable condition involving one’s vital prognosis in the short or medium term”. Opponents and supporters of the text consider this last notion inapplicable, but the executive insists on it. Catherine Vautrin contacted the High Authority for Health to obtain a definition, but it will only be known after the law has been passed. Members of Parliament do not want to wait. On Thursday the 17th in the middle of the afternoon, they adopted another formulation: “in an advanced or terminal phase” replaced “involving its vital prognosis in the short or medium term”. To convince that this is not an extension of the right to die, Olivier Falorni argues that if this had been the case, the Finance Committee would have rejected the amendment under Article 40 for increased expenditure. , which she did not do. QED. Unfavorable to this formulation, Catherine Vautrin recalls that it already exists in the law regarding deep and continuous sedation and that it goes against the desired goal by being closer to the short term than the medium term. But she is not listened to.

For the government, the defeat is important. Arriving at a public session with his original text would have placed him in a position of strength. From now on, it is exposed to an escalation on this precise point, the supporters defending it tooth and nail, the opponents seeing it as proof of an inevitable extension (to minors, to other pathologies, etc.) of the right to die. In public session, under the gaze of the cameras, some might be tempted to show that they played a central role in the creation of this law. One way or the other. “In committee, the deputies understood that we were legislating for patients, they had prepared and worked on their subject, they were neither in the game of tricks nor in provocation”, noted Catherine Vautrin at the end of the work . As long as it lasts, she could have added…