France’s National Assembly Backs Assisted Dying Bill for a Third Time

MPs backed the ‘right to die’ bill by a shrinking margin, as debate hardened over safeguards, vulnerable patients, and rival lobbies’ influence.

Members of the French executive branch and lawmakers attend a session at the National Assembly in Paris on Nov. 26, 2024. Bertrand Guay/ AFP via Getty Images

PARIS—France’s National Assembly on June 30 approved a bill creating a right to assisted dying, moving the country closer to joining European neighbors that already permit euthanasia or assisted suicide. Deputies backed the text by 295 votes to 232, with 35 abstentions.

It was the third time in two years the lower house has adopted the measure, after votes in May 2025 and February 2026. The Senate, which has twice rejected the bill, will examine it again on July 7 and 8 before a final reading on July 15 in the Assembly, the chamber that has the last word, making passage likely.

What the Bill Would Permit

The text sets five cumulative conditions. An applicant must be at least 18, hold French nationality or reside legally in France, and suffer from a serious, incurable illness that is life-threatening at an advanced or terminal stage.

They must also face suffering linked to the illness that is untreatable or, by their own account, unbearable, and be able to express their wishes freely; psychological suffering alone cannot qualify.

A physician gathers the opinion of a second doctor and, if needed, a psychiatrist, then rules within 15 days. On a date of their choosing, the patient self-administers the lethal substance; a doctor or nurse may perform the act only if the patient is physically unable to do so, and may invoke a conscience clause.

Shrinking Margins, Hardening Debate

The gap between the two camps has narrowed at each reading, from a margin of 106 votes in May 2025 (305–199), to 73 votes in February (299–226), and now 63. Progressive deputies voted largely in favor, while MPs of conservative parties mostly voted against.

Supporters cast the law as tightly framed. Agnès Firmin Le Bodo, a centrist deputy, told the chamber the text “does not establish a right to death” and is “demanding for caregivers, respectful of consciences, and framed by guarantees.”

Opponents rejected that reading, with National Rally deputy Christophe Bentz warning that “your criteria today will not be those of tomorrow,” and calling the safeguards “provisional, occasional, and therefore fictitious.”

Fears of a Slippery Slope

Opponents of the bill have leveled sharp criticism at what they see as its failure to protect vulnerable people. Compounding those concerns is the bill’s silence on psychiatric review: It sets no requirement to consult a psychiatrist, even when a patient’s capacity to decide is in doubt.

In an interview with The Epoch Times, Alexandre Alegret Pilot, a conservative MP, warned of “pressure on the poor, the disabled, and adults under legal guardianship.”

Once the principle is admitted, he argued, there is “no reason” the practice would not eventually reach any applicant who asks. He noted that “the French Association for the Right to Die With Dignity (ADMD) had itself described the law as ‘a foot in the door’ that would invite steady expansion of who qualifies.”

Alegret Pilot also pointed to what he called a contradiction among the bill’s progressive backers. Those who champion society’s most vulnerable, and who hold that every act, from theft to violence to signing a contract, is shaped by “systemic oppression” bearing down on the weakest, now maintain that a frail person under legal guardianship is capable of a free and fully informed choice.

“Someone not even trusted to write a 1,000-euro check,” he said.

The National Assembly rejected numerous amendments seeking to exclude people with intellectual disabilities, psychiatric conditions such as bipolar disorder, or cognitive impairments, as well as those under legal guardianship.

Critics also fault the 48-hour reflection period that follows approval of a request, the “wide subjectivity” involved in judging both decision-making capacity and suffering, the “murky rules” governing the collegial consultation, and weak guarantees of psychological support. Taken together, they argue, these gaps could expose vulnerable patients to unspoken pressure, whatever the theoretical right to withdraw a request at any moment.

Alegret Pilot further criticized the removal of a collective conscience clause for institutions such as Catholic care homes. Under the text, an establishment cannot opt out as a body.

‘A Right, Not an Obligation’

Supporters reject these alarms, describing a carefully bounded freedom. Philippe Lohéac, general delegate of the ADMD, told The Epoch Times the law “opens a right, not an obligation,” and called fears of a slippery slope unfounded, pointing to Belgium and the Netherlands, which pair legal assisted dying with universal access to palliative care.

Under the French text, he noted, disability or vulnerability alone opens no right to die; the measure requires a life-threatening prognosis and an explicit request from the patient. Doctors, he added, should be trusted to apply it within the legal framework and “are not driven by eugenic motives.”

Some opponents, he charged, are “stoking undue fear.” He framed the measure as a matter of listening rather than pressure.

“There is no coercion, only support,” he said.

Patients reach their decision, he said, when medicine can no longer relieve their suffering and they conclude that what remains of their life no longer holds sufficient quality.

“We must listen to them,” he said.

On the removal of the collective conscience clause, Lohéac argued that granting such a clause to an institution would strip patients too frail to travel of their rights.

“Is this humane?” he asked.

Staff, he stressed, remain entirely free to refuse, but the institution must let outside practitioners enter and carry out the act.

“Walls, for their part, have neither conscience nor suffering,” he said.

Lohéac predicted the controversy would fade.

“In 10 years, you will see that there is no longer any opposition to this law, except for purely dogmatic objections,” he said.

People will have grown used to it, he argued, because “the feared abuses will not have materialized.”

Religious Institutions and Freemasonry

France’s religious leaders have lined up against the bill. The Conference of Religious Leaders in France, representing Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, and Buddhist communities, warned of an “anthropological rupture” and of pressure on the elderly and the sick, and the country’s Catholic bishops called for a prayer novena in the days before the vote.

Hanane Mansouri, a conservative MP, told the Assembly she regretted that “some of the text’s promoters saw fit to meet the leaders of the Grand Orient de France Masonic lodge,” and predicted a million people would ultimately be eligible.

The Grand Orient, France’s oldest, largest, and openly progressive Masonic obedience, or governing body, has openly campaigned for legalized assisted dying for years; President Emmanuel Macron addressed the lodge in November 2023 and pledged the legislation, and its grand master, Guillaume Trichard, has said the obedience met government ministers and the bill’s then-sponsor, Olivier Falorni.

The accusation ran both ways. On the left, France Unbowed deputy Hadrien Clouet cast the vote as “the defeat of a whole array of ultra-reactionary outfits, from Opus Dei to the Society of Saint Pius X,” while Socialist Stéphane Delautrette warned against letting the law become “the hostage” of “certain religious lobbies.”

A Divided Public and a Wider Trend

Public opinion is contested. In January, an IFOP survey commissioned by the ADMD found 87 percent support letting terminally ill people choose between palliative care and assisted dying, and some polls have put overall backing above 90 percent.

In 2018, an IFOP survey for the French Catholic newspaper La Croix found similar results.

A separate Fondapol study conducted with OpinionWay found more division. Asked what they would want for a gravely ill relative, 52 percent chose quality palliative care over euthanasia, against 38 percent, and respondents split almost evenly, 50 to 48 percent, on whether palliative care should be guaranteed across France before any legalization of assisted dying.

France would join a lengthening list of jurisdictions. Euthanasia is legal under conditions in the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain, Portugal, Canada, Australia, and Colombia, while assisted dying is permitted in Switzerland and several U.S. states.

Both camps agree the practice already exists in the shadows. France’s National Institute for Demographic Studies estimates between 2,000 and 4,000 clandestine cases each year, while others travel abroad for the procedure. Whatever the outcome on July 15, deputies on both benches called the vote a turning point.