France latest country to vote on assisted dying measures with ‘lethal medication' bill
France's National Assembly is set to vote on a bill that would permit adults with incurable illnesses to take lethal medication, reflecting increasing calls for legal end-of-life options throughout Europe.
The vote, scheduled for Tuesday afternoon, marks a significant point in the debate over the sensitive issue. If a majority of lawmakers approve the bill, it will proceed to the Senate for further consideration.
The proposed law defines assisted dying as enabling individuals, under specific conditions, to use a lethal substance themselves. Assistance from a doctor or nurse would only be available to those physically unable to administer the medication themselves.
Eligibility for the measure would require patients to be over 18, and either French citizens or residents of France. A team of medical professionals would need to confirm that the patient has a severe and incurable condition in an advanced or terminal stage, is experiencing unbearable and untreatable pain, and is voluntarily seeking lethal medication.
Individuals with severe psychiatric conditions or neurodegenerative disorders, such as Alzheimer's disease, would not qualify under the proposed legislation.
The person would initiate the request for lethal medication and confirm the request after a period of reflection.
If approved, a doctor would then deliver a prescription for the lethal medication, which could be taken at home, at a nursing home or a health care facility.
In parallel, another bill on palliative care meant to reinforce measures to relieve pain and preserve patients' dignity will also be put to a vote Tuesday.
A 2023 report indicated that most French citizens back legalizing end-of-life options, and opinion polls show growing support over the past 20 years. Initial discussions in parliament last year were abruptly interrupted by President Emmanuel Macron 's decision to dissolve the National Assembly, plunging France into a months-long political crisis.
Months-long debate still ahead
A definitive vote on the measure could take months to be scheduled amid France's long and complex legislative process. The National Assembly has the final say over the Senate.
Earlier this month, Macron suggested he could ask for French voters to approve the measure via referendum if parliament discussions get off track.
Activists supporting the change have criticised the complexity and length of the parliamentary process that they say is penalising patients waiting for end-of-life options.
Many French people have traveled to neighbouring countries where medically assisted suicide or euthanasia are legal.
The Association for the Right to Die with Dignity (ADMD) has called on French lawmakers 'to respect the French who want the same right that our Dutch, Belgian, Luxembourgian, Swiss, Spanish, Portuguese neighbors have.'
French religious leaders issued this month a joint statement to denounce the bill, warning about the 'dangers' of an 'anthropological rupture.' The Conference of Religious Leaders in France (CRCF), which represents the Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim and Buddhist communities, said the proposed measures risk exerting pressure on older people and those with illnesses or disabilities.
Similar talks in the UK
The debate in France comes as similar talks are ongoing in the UK, where lawmakers are debating a bill to help terminally ill adults end their lives in England and Wales after giving it initial approval in November.
Medically assisted suicide involves patients taking, of their own free will, a lethal drink or medication that has been prescribed by a doctor to those who meet certain criteria. Euthanasia involves doctors or other health practitioners giving patients who meet certain criteria a lethal injection at their own request.
Assisted suicide is allowed in Switzerland and several US states. Euthanasia is currently legal in the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Canada, Australia, Colombia, Belgium and Luxembourg under certain conditions.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
Common prescription drug prevents heart attack and stroke WITHOUT deadly risk, scientists discover
A COMMON prescription drug has been linked to lower rates of heart attack and stroke - with no increased risk of major bleeding, say scientists. Low-dose aspirin is recommended by the NHS to prevent heart attacks and strokes in people who are at high risk of them. 1 Because aspirin helps to stop your blood from clotting, it can sometimes make you bleed more easily. For example, you may get nosebleeds and bruise more easily, and if you cut yourself, the bleeding may take longer than normal to stop. Now, a study published by The BMJ supports the use of P2Y12 therapy instead of aspirin for long term prevention. Giving the anti-clotting drug to patients with coronary artery disease was associated with lower rates of cardiovascular death, heart attack and stroke compared with traditional aspirin, with no increased risk of major bleeding. P2Y12 inhibitors are usually given to patients alongside aspirin after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) - a procedure to widen or unblock a coronary artery to help prevent cardiovascular events. After several months, patients are usually switched from dual therapy (both drugs) to lifelong aspirin, but some trials have suggested a P2Y12 inhibitor may be more effective for long term prevention than aspirin. So in the new study, researchers analysed individual patient data from five randomised clinical trials involving 16,117 patients who were assigned to either a P2Y12 inhibitor or aspirin after completing dual therapy. When they were followed up four years later, P2Y12 inhibitor therapy was associated with a 23 per cent lower risk of an outcome that combined cardiovascular death, heart attack, or stroke, compared with aspirin - with no significance different in major bleeding. When considering outcomes individually, P2Y12 inhibitor therapy reduced heart attacks and stroke compared with aspirin. The researchers said: "Overall, this study supports preferential P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy prescription over aspirin due to reductions in major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events without increasing major bleeding in the medium term." Women vs. Men Heart Attack Symptoms But, they note "medium term efficacy does not necessarily extend lifelong, which is the duration we advise patients to continue these medications". To prevent heart attacks and strokes in patients with coronary artery disease, it's crucial to make lifestyle changes like quitting smoking, exercising regularly, maintaining a healthy weight, and following a balanced diet. Smoking significantly increases the risk of heart disease and stroke, so quitting is recommended. People should aim for at least 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic exercise per week and choose a diet low in saturated and trans fats, high in fibre, fruits, vegetables, and whole grains, and low in salt. If you drink alcohol, you should do so in moderation. And practice relaxation techniques, like deep breathing or yoga, and find healthy ways to copy with stress. Seeing your doctor regularly for screenings and to monitor your heart health. And making sure you get enough sleep (seven to nine hours per night) is important. Various symptoms and warning signs can indicate heart disease, and being aware of them can help in early detection and treatment...
Times
2 hours ago
- Times
Labour's plan for illegal migrants explained — and is it working?
What you need to know Sir Keir Starmer has secured improved commitments from France on tackling small boats but this has yet to translate into action on the ground Labour believes a new bill going through the Lords would make a significant difference in its pledge to 'smash the gangs' Despite rejecting the Rwanda plan as a 'gimmick', the prime minister's plan for return hubs has a similar aim, but is still at an early stage Ministers are looking at tightening the rules around Article 8 of the ECHR, the right to family life, in asylum claims When Sir Keir Starmer entered No 10 almost a year ago he pledged to make good on Labour's election promise to 'smash the gangs' and succeed, where the Conservatives had failed, in securing Britain's borders against illegal migration. Yet so far this year almost 15,000 people have arrived in the UK in small boats — up 42 per cent on this time last year and a 95 per cent rise from the same point in 2023. This week ministers sought to blame the weather and insisted that their policies would be effective in making good on Starmer's pledge. But what exactly is the government doing, and how successful has it been? A new deal with France From the British side perhaps the most critical element of the government's small boats strategy has been to leverage Starmer's relationship with President Macron to persuade the French to take a more proactive approach to preventing small boats setting sail from French waters in the first place. At the start of the year the prime minister hosted Macron at Chequers, where the two leaders agreed to step up bilateral co-operation to prevent Channel crossings. This led to a formal agreement a month later under which the UK extended a £480 million deal to pay for policing French beaches in return for new measures to stem the flow of boats. In particular, Paris agreed to change the law to allow police officers to apprehend vessels in shallow waters and restore the offence of an 'illegal stay' in France, which would allow the police to arrest migrants and smugglers before they attempted a crossing. There was also a commitment by France to speed up the construction of a detention centre in Dunkirk — paid for by the British — which had become bogged down in planning rows. But, so far, these commitments have yet to materialise. The plan to enable police to intervene within 300m of the shore is yet to be implemented amid opposition from the officers themselves. There is also still slow progress on Dunkirk. Verdict: Ministers believe improved co-operation with France is as close as it comes to a silver bullet to stem the flow of boats. But while Starmer has won important commitments from Paris, which were never given to the last government, these commitments have yet to materialise into action on the ground. New legal powers to tackle smuggling gangs In January ministers published a bill that they claimed would give police anti-terrorism-style powers to 'identify, disrupt and prevent' organised immigration crime. The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which is going through the House of Lords, will make it illegal to handle items suspected of being used for organised immigration crime, such as boat parts and engines, with a maximum punishment of 14 years in prison. Those found collecting information that could be used by people smugglers will face up to five years in jail. This would include researching routes or vessels online, or arranging departure points, dates and times. The new offences will be accompanied by additional powers for Border Force officers, police and the National Crime Agency. They will be allowed to seize and search the mobile phones of anyone arriving in the UK illegally if they believe it will help an investigation into who organised the journey. The information gathered will also be available to be used in cases brought overseas. Verdict: Senior policing figures believe the legislation will make a difference in their ability to dismantle the smuggling gangs — pointing out that the numbers involved are in the hundreds — and are vulnerable to a concerted attempt to dismantle their activities. However, as the bill is not yet law, at the moment it remains an aspiration. Return hubs In one of his first acts as prime minister Starmer scrapped the Conservative Party's plans to send migrants to Rwanda, branding it a waste of money and a 'gimmick'. However, he is now drawing up a policy that sounds remarkably similar — sending failed asylum seekers to 'return hubs' in the west Balkans. There is one significant difference: the Tories planned to send all those who came to the UK on small boats abroad, while Labour's plan is limited to those who have exhausted all avenues of appeal. But the intent is similar: to deter people from making the crossings in the first place. Verdict: The plans are at a very early stage, and it is not a given that countries will agree to host the return hubs. Albania has already ruled out doing so. There remain significant legal and political challenges to getting the scheme off the ground. There is broader support for the idea among some EU states and also in the UN. But even if the plans get off the ground, there is no guarantee it will work as a deterrent. Deal with other countries In December Starmer negotiated a deal with Germany, which agreed to tighten its laws to make it easier to prosecute those helping to smuggle migrants to the UK. Ministers said this was important because facilitating people-smuggling to a third country was not technically illegal in Germany. However, the law has not yet been enacted, and ministers need to win approval from the new German government for it to be put into place. Starmer has also recently announced a partnership with Albania, Kosovo and North Macedonia to detect and deter illegal migration operations. Verdict: The prime minister has made improving international co-operation to tackle smuggling gangs a big diplomatic priority for the government. But while the issue is a huge priority for the UK it is less important for other countries, and it remains to be seen how quickly and effectively diplomatic deals are converted into concrete action. The asylum backlog and hotels There are 8,000 more asylum seekers living in hotels than when Starmer pledged during the election campaign in June last year to 'end asylum hotels, saving the taxpayer billions of pounds'. The reality of how difficult that is has become clear. This month the National Audit Office said the cost of asylum accommodation would be three times higher than previously estimated and more than 38,000 migrants are being housed in hotels, costing the Home Office an estimated £5.5 million a day — while a further 66,000 migrants are in dispersal accommodation such as large houses, bedsits and flats across different local authorities. • Migrants will be put up in hotels for years yet, Treasury admits The vast majority are awaiting asylum decisions, so speeding up that process is seen as key. The Home Office has had some success — it has been increased by 52 per cent and 24,000 people have been removed from the country. Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, is also planning to change the law to introduce a mandatory 24-week legal deadline for all asylum appeals. Verdict: If decision-making can genuinely be sped up it will help not only to bring down the hotel bill, but could act as a deterrent for those considering making the journey across the Channel. Human rights laws Ministers will bring in a new framework for judges to work to when deciding whether to allow migrants to make claims for asylum using the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). The most heavily used part of the ECHR, Article 8 — the right to family life — has been leveraged by murderers and paedophiles to stay in the country. Cooper revealed this week about 30 per cent of cases had been considered 'exceptional' by judges, and she wants to restrict that to a more narrow set of circumstances. • Kemi Badenoch would override ECHR on asylum for illegal migrants Verdict: Restricting the scope of Article 8 will save ministers from some embarrassing headlines but is unlikely to be enough on its own to fulfil the government's immigration pledges. An appetite to direct judges — and suggestions that the government could be open to reforming the ECHR — shows a willingness from Starmer and Cooper to step into an arena previously inhabited by the Tories and Reform UK. But as those on the right ramp up pressure for Britain to pull out of the convention altogether, the efforts may fall short.
The Sun
4 hours ago
- The Sun
Fury as unions could STOP plans to force French cops to intercept UK-bound migrants as it's ‘too dangerous'
PLANS to force police in France to intercept migrants on the beaches before they board boats for Britain have been rejected by powerful unions across the Channel. They claim it would be too dangerous to try to tackle overcrowded dinghies at sea. 2 And their opposition is threatening to scupper efforts to close a loophole that means officers in France cannot stop boats once they are already in the water. As a result, smugglers launch dinghies from inland canals and act as taxis to pick up migrants who wade into the sea, while law enforcement officials watch on from the shore. France Interior Minister Bruno Retailleau wants to change the law so officers can intervene up to 300m from the coastline but progress has been slow. A new strategy is being drawn up to coincide with President Emmanuel Macron 's State visit to Britain in July. But unions in France are opposed to the plan. A senior source at Alliance — the largest police union in the country — said: 'People don't seem to realise how dangerous it is to try to carry out arrests at sea, while trying to force a boat to change course. 'If there are 80 people on an overcrowded boat, including women and children, then it is extremely dangerous to try to stop them. 'The potential for disaster, including further deaths, is immense. Turning us into sea police is not the way forward.' A source at the maritime branch of the General Confederation of Labour, which represents seamen across France, told The Sun: 'If a potentially vulnerable boat is stable then it should not be interfered with until it reaches a safe place on the shore. "Such boats should only be interfered with at sea if they are in serious trouble.' Frédéric Okonek, coastal delegate for the Un1té union, said previously: 'If the police intervene in the water, the boat sinks with a hundred people on board. It's too dangerous. Starmer 'loses control' as over 1,000 migrants cross Channel in biggest daily total of 2025 – as French cops watch on 'We also have orders: When the boat is in the water, we no longer have the right to intervene. It's to prevent tragedies.' Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has told Mr Retailleau she wants the law changed as swiftly as possible. Last Saturday, 1,195 migrants arrived on 19 small boats — the highest number for a single day this year. Fewer than 40 per cent of boats have been turned back despite a £480million deal with France to combat crossings. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said: ' Belgium has been very successfully intercepting returning boats at sea and has almost entirely stopped embarkations. " Trade unions and the Left have no interest in stopping illegal immigration.' 2
