Following the failure of an attempt to find a middle-ground position acceptable to a majority of senators from across the political spectrum, the future of France’s assisted suicide and euthanasia Bill is now in doubt.
During a tense parliamentary session on Wednesday 21 January, senators rejected Article 4 of the Bill, the key provision that defined who would be eligible to access assisted suicide or euthanasia under the law. The article was voted down by 144 votes to 123.
What the Bill originally proposed
The National Assembly, the lower chamber of the French parliament, adopted the legislation in May last year. The text, if accepted, would have created a new legal “right” to assisted suicide or euthanasia, with eligibility criteria that included patients who were not at the end of their life but in an “advanced stage”. The Bill also limited the conscience clause to healthcare professionals directly involved in carrying out the assisted death, while denying such protection to pharmacists, palliative care centres and nursing homes. The legislation would have also conferred a duty of referral onto these conscientious objectors, whereby patients would be required to be passed on to a healthcare professional who would participate in the assisted suicide or euthanasia procedures.
It also introduced a new criminal offence of “obstruction”, punishable by up to two years in prison and a substantial fine, for anyone found guilty of attempting to dissuade a person from proceeding with an assisted death, including through what the law described as “moral or psychological pressure”.
When the Bill reached the French Senate, it was first examined by the Senate’s Social Affairs Committee, which sought to narrow the scope of the legislation. The committee tightened eligibility criteria, restricting access to euthanasia and assisted suicide to only adults who have a short-term life prognosis, and attempted to introduce clearer boundaries. In practice, this would have meant that assisted suicide and euthanasia could only be accessed by people for whom death is expected within 15 days.
A group of senators rejected the amended Bill on the grounds that it did not go far enough
These restrictions triggered a backlash within the Senate itself. A number of senators argued that the revised text had moved too far away from the version adopted by the National Assembly, complaining that the added safeguards undermined what they saw as the Bill’s original intent. In effect, they objected not because the law went too far, but because, in their view, it no longer went far enough.
However, this concern about the Bill ultimately proved fatal when the Senate came to vote on Article 4. Article 4 was widely recognised as the cornerstone of the Bill, as it set out the conditions under which assisted suicide or euthanasia could be authorised. By rejecting it, the Senate removed the only provision that made the rest of the legislation operational.
Following the vote, Patrick Kanner, leader of the Socialist group in the Senate, said “We did not agree with Article 4, considering it to be a glass half empty. We therefore voted against it”. The Socialist group voted overwhelmingly against Article 4, with 62 of its 65 senators opposing the clause.
Senator Emmanuel Capus said “I have always said that this text satisfies no one: some think it does not go far enough, others think it goes too far”.
Later in the evening, another amendment was adopted that completely rewrote Article 2 of the original Bill to make assisted suicide or euthanasia impossible. As it stands, Article 2 now says that “[e]veryone has the right to the best possible relief from pain and suffering” and that “[a]ny person may exercise this right until their death, without any voluntary intervention intending to cause death or assist in dying”.
What happens next
Under France’s parliamentary system, a Bill must be passed in identical terms by both chambers before it can become law. When the Senate and National Assembly disagree so fundamentally, as they do on assisted suicide and euthanasia, the Bill may be sent back and forth between them, or a joint committee may attempt to broker a compromise. Although this Bill was formally introduced by an individual MP, it has been publicly supported by the Government, which had itself introduced a first “end of life” Bill in 2024 before the dissolution of the National Assembly later that year.
A formal vote on the amended Bill is scheduled for 28 January in the Senate, alongside a separate piece of legislation focused on palliative care, but due to the large changes to the Bill, this vote will largely be meaningless as agreement is unlikely.
“This lack of consensus reflects the depth of the ethical, medical and social questions raised by these measures”, the French Society for Support and Palliative Care said in a statement, with reports stating that it is calling on senators to focus on the proposed law on equal access to palliative care and end-of-life support.
Ludovine de La Rochère, president of French pro-life organisation The Family Union, commented “By refusing to consider euthanasia and assisted suicide as the appropriate response to the end of life, the senators have opened up another way out of the impasse: society does not expect us to organise death, but to offer everyone appropriate care until the end. The real progress today is to guarantee everyone access to palliative care, support and relief from suffering, not to pave the way for the acceptance of lethal action”.
Dr Rajiv Shah, a former UK Government advisor, said “Big news from France where the Senate completely removed the assisted dying provisions from the Bill and replaced them with a right to receive adequate pain relief”, adding, “I hope [the House of Lords] is inspired”.
Spokesperson for Right To Life UK, Catherine Robinson, said “It’s encouraging to see the French Senate recognise the serious dangers inherent in legalising assisted suicide and euthanasia by removing the core provisions of the Bill”.
“It is all too clear that once assisted suicide or euthanasia is legalised, the attitude of society towards its most vulnerable members changes significantly for the worse. The Senate’s rejection of the eligibility clause reflects growing concern about the risks of pressure, coercion and the erosion of protections for society’s most vulnerable people”.
“Rather than introducing a right to die, lawmakers should be focusing on ensuring that everyone has access to high-quality palliative and end-of-life care”.
“Those in the House of Lords should take inspiration from this example set by the French Senate – that irreconcilable differences on assisted suicide and euthanasia mean that the legislation should be rejected, rather than passing a flawed and unworkable version of the legislation”.
