Concerns have been raised about France’s proposed “Assistance in Dying Bill” by a United Nations (UN) committee.
The group has cited the impact it will have on disabled people as potentially problematic, along with the lack of alternative options to euthanasia and a lack of information on safeguards.
The National Assembly, the lower house of the French parliament approved the bill in its first reading earlier this year, by a vote of 305 to 199.
The UN committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities said in a letter to the French Government following the first reading vote that, if implemented, the law “would result in an infringement of the duty of the State party to respect, protect and guarantee the right to life of persons with disabilities”.
According to Evangelical Focus, the committee requested more information on the proposals from the French Government and also expressed concerns that the proposed eligibility criteria for an assisted death “appear to be based in ‘ableist’ perceptions of the quality and value of the life of persons with disabilities”.
Furthermore, they claimed that too little information has been provided about relevant safeguards ensuring that disabled people can make an informed choice, or about “safeguards against coercion, undue influence, and abuse of power”.
Separately, the National Assembly has approved a €1.1billion investment in palliative care services by 2034. Both bills will return to the Senate this autumn and could return to the National Assembly for their final approval at the beginning of next year.
The French interfaith “Conference of Religious Leaders” is among those opposing the legislation. It has stated: ““It enshrines individual autonomy and self-determination as absolute, excluding any consultation with loved ones and healthcare teams, or any spiritual or psychological support – and taking no account of the relational and interdependent dimension of human existence.”
“Legalising administered death will not signify progress, but an ethical, social, and medical regression,” the council added. “Describing it as ‘natural’ is an untruth that aims to numb consciences and weaken public debate.”
