On December 12th, the deputies Jean Laonetti and Alain Claeys submitted their report on end of life issues to the president. The latter spoke up to ease the minds of vigilant citizens. Excess concerning euthanasia? Here are simply the words of opponents, who happen to be a little too virulent, trying to rile up controversies…
These « opponents » ask no better than to stay indoors by the fire on Sunday afternoons and give the president the benefit of the doubt. However, several reasons lead them to think that vigilance is necessary.
"No to euthanasia" in theory but not in facts.
France is advancing towards euthanasia. Presidential candidate, François Hollande, had included it into his campaign promises. Currently, the Claeys-Leonetti report is making a clever use of words in order to sweeten the pill and make euthanasia seem politically correct.
• Creation of a « right to deep sedation » leading to death. Even without the injection of a lethal substance, this is clearly an act of euthanasia, which marker is the will to provoke death (through recourse to excessive doses of painkillers and anaesthetics, in higher dosage than what is necessary to put the patient to sleep in order to soothe his pain).
• Putting pressure on people to make advance directives. This alters medical intervention which, by essence, cannot be an act that kills or an act driven by false liberty. Indeed, presented like an accession to autonomy for patients, this evolution will, on the contrary, only generate constraint, isolation, and, potentially, stigmatisation for the vast majority of them.
The domino effect must be stopped!
The scenario has now become so common than one can no longer put on an angelic face. Since abortion was legalised exactly 40 years ago, all reforms concerning the respect of human life, i.e., prenatal selection, embryonic research, medically assisted procreation, and soon, gestational surrogacy, have followed the same path, a path which is presented as progress: calling upon specific situations marked by suffering as an excuse, a first law was voted to authorise the transgression of the respect of life, while public opinion was being reassured concerning the boundaries of this transgression and its registration under an exceptional regime.
This exception quickly becomes the rule and the transgression ends up being brandished as a “fundamental right”. The radical changes implied by this systematic approach are like a series of dominos and, one after the other, blow away the other cornerstones which structure our society and protects fragile human lives.
On January 21st will begin the parliamentary debate concerning the end of life. On January 29th a text in favour of euthanasia and assisted suicide will be examined. Between the two, one date, one event to oppose this next step in bioethical disruption: the Walk for Life on January 25th: Make yourself heard!