Divided French Parliament Gives Final Approval to Assisted Dying Bill

The bill—which excludes psychological suffering on its own—is now under review by the Constitutional Council.

The hemicycle during Questions to the government, at the parliament, in Paris on Feb. 3, 2026. Magali Cohen/Hans Lucas/AFP via Getty Images

PARIS—France’s National Assembly gave final approval on July 15 to a bill creating a right to assisted dying, ending more than two years of parliamentary debate and placing France among the countries that permit euthanasia and assisted suicide for humans.

Euthanasia is permitted under varying legal frameworks in the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain, Portugal, Canada, Australia, and Colombia, while assisted dying is authorized in Switzerland and several U.S. states.

In euthanasia, a third party administers the lethal substance while in assisted dying, the patient self-administers the lethal medication.

French deputies adopted the legislation by 291 votes to 241, with 29 abstentions. The left and centrist blocs largely backed the bill, while the right mostly opposed it.

It was the narrowest of the Assembly’s four votes on the legislation, after a 305–199–57 vote in May 2025, 299–226–37 in February, and 295–232–35 in June. The Senate controlled by the right and center rejected it three times—most recently on July 7—before the government allowed the National Assembly to have the decisive vote under French parliamentary rules.

What the Law Permits

The law opens assisted suicide, and in some cases euthanasia, to adults with a serious, incurable illness that is life-threatening at an advanced or terminal stage, who face untreatable or unbearable suffering, and can express a free and informed wish.

Psychological suffering, on its own, does not meet the eligibility criteria.

A doctor rules within 15 days with a multi-professional panel, and the patient confirms after a reflection period of at least two days.

Health workers may invoke a conscience clause but must refer the patient to a willing colleague, though pharmacists are not covered by it.

A companion law guaranteeing equal access to palliative care passed unanimously and was promulgated on May 26, with the government pledging a 60 percent funding increase.

Sent to the Constitutional Council

On the eve of the vote, Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu, regarded as personally reserved about the reform, referred the text to the Constitutional Council for review in concert with French President Emmanuel Macron, who called it the flagship social reform of his second term. Senate president Gérard Larcher, a firm opponent, announced his own referral.

The constitutional review could take up to a month and, if approved, would head to Macron for signing.

The Council said it will weigh the length of the retraction period, the position of adults under legal protection and their capacity to consent, and the duty imposed on care institutions.

Olivier Falorni, the bill’s author and now mayor of La Rochelle, said he did not fear a rejection.

Religious Groups and Freemasonry

France’s religious leaders have largely opposed the bill.

The Conference of Religious Leaders in France—which brings together Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, and Buddhist representatives—warned in May of an “anthropological rupture.”

On the other side, the Grand Orient of France, the country’s largest and openly progressive Masonic obedience, has campaigned in favor of legalizing assisted dying, framing it as a matter of freedom and dignity in a statement issued in June.

In November 2023, Macron addressed the prominent Masonic lodge and pledged to pursue the legislation.

A Strict Framework or an Open Door

One of the main points of disagreement between the two camps centers on how broadly the law’s eligibility criteria will be interpreted.

Ludovine de La Rochère, president of the conservative family advocacy organization The Family Union and a voice against euthanasia in the French public debate, rejected the argument that the law sets a “strict framework.” She told The Epoch Times it is “so broad that hundreds of thousands of people will be eligible from the outset.”

Opponents also warned that the criteria, however it is framed today, will loosen over time.

The bill’s supporters say that the law requires a genuinely life-threatening prognosis and that disability or vulnerability alone will not make someone eligible for assisted dying.

Denis Labayle, a French physician and honorary president of the pro-assisted-dying association Le Choix, told The Epoch Times that France “should also look at what is happening in other countries,” citing 25 years of assisted-dying laws in Belgium and the Netherlands and eight years in Canada.

“You could always identify a handful of debatable cases. But there has been no massacre of disabled people, no massacre of people who did not ask to die,” he said.

Opponents also question the 48-hour reflection period that follows an approved request, the broad discretion left to those assessing both a patient’s decision-making capacity and their suffering, and what they call unclear rules governing the required collegial consultation.

A Burden or a Release

Labayle said passing the bill eases anxiety. “People breathe; they know they will have the choice.” He also said the measure concerns only “a very small part of the population.”

For Labayle, there is “a fundamental distinction between causing death and responding to a request made by many patients.”

“There are already thousands of people turning to assisted dying each year, while others travel abroad to access the procedure,” he said.

However, more fundamentally, opponents say the bill addresses the wrong problem: distressing end-of-life situations persist, they said, largely because many patients still lack access to palliative care, whose development they warn could itself be undermined by legalizing assisted dying.

For de La Rochère, proponents’ emphasis on individual freedom is misleading the culture, because vulnerable, sick, or dependent people “suffer above all from the feeling that they are a burden on those around them and on society.” No one will be explicitly told to die, she said, but many “will be the harshest on themselves” and conclude, “I give up, so as not to weigh on others.”

The reform, de La Rochère said, “undermines the very meaning of medicine, which is to save life, not to give death.”

Both camps, however, agree on one point: the Parliament’s adoption of this law constitutes a watershed moment in the country’s history.