Select Page

04.- Fin de vie / End of life — CHURCH OF FRANCE / États généraux de la bioéthique — Which world do we want for tomorrow? The brave new world…

04.- Fin de vie / End of life — CHURCH OF FRANCE /  États généraux de la bioéthique — Which world do we want for tomorrow? The brave new world…

Scientific and legal elements :

Since 1999, the leg­is­la­tor has devel­oped three axes: access to pal­lia­tive care, physi­cian-patient co-respon­si­bil­i­ty and pre­ven­tion of ther­a­peu­tic relentlessness.

Pal­lia­tive care is defined as “acute and con­tin­u­ing care pro­vid­ed by an inter­dis­ci­pli­nary team in an insti­tu­tion or at home. They aim to relieve pain, alle­vi­ate psy­cho­log­i­cal suf­fer­ing, safe­guard the dig­ni­ty of the sick per­son and sup­port those around him. The law of June 9, 1999 estab­lish­es a right of access to pal­lia­tive care to any per­son whose con­di­tion requires it. The law of 22 April 2005 (“Léonet­ti Law”) requires the com­pul­so­ry inclu­sion of a pal­lia­tive care chap­ter in mul­ti-year con­tracts con­clud­ed between health care insti­tu­tions and the pub­lic super­vi­so­ry author­i­ties. The law of 2 Feb­ru­ary 2016 (“Léonet­ti-Claeys Law”) includes edu­ca­tion on pal­lia­tive care in the “ini­tial and con­tin­u­ing train­ing” of health pro­fes­sion­als (arti­cle 1). The imple­men­ta­tion of access to pal­lia­tive care is sup­port­ed by mul­ti-year plans but remains insufficient[2], despite the rec­om­men­da­tions of the Nation­al Con­sul­ta­tive Ethics Com­mit­tee (cf. Opin­ion n°108).

The law of 4 March 2002 estab­lish­es a doc­tor-patient co-respon­si­bil­i­ty: “Every per­son, togeth­er with the health pro­fes­sion­al and tak­ing into account the infor­ma­tion and rec­om­men­da­tions he pro­vides, takes deci­sions con­cern­ing his health… No med­ical act or treat­ment can be per­formed with­out the free and informed con­sent of the per­son and this con­sent may be with­drawn at any time[3]. In case the patient is unable to express his will, the doc­tor, before any inter­ven­tion or inves­ti­ga­tion, must con­sult the “trust­ed per­son” des­ig­nat­ed in advance by the patient or fam­i­ly, or fail­ing that one of his relatives.

The Act of 22 April 2005 adds to this pro­vi­sion the pos­si­bil­i­ty for any adult to “draft advance direc­tives in the event that one day he is unable to express his will”. It rein­forces the role of the “trust­ed per­son”. It makes a “col­le­gial pro­ce­dure” com­pul­so­ry before the doc­tor decides to lim­it or stop treat­ment like­ly to endan­ger the life of a patient who is unable to express his will. Final­ly, it gives the patient the pos­si­bil­i­ty to refuse or inter­rupt any treat­ment. How­ev­er, the doc­tor must try to con­vince him to accept “essen­tial care”.

The law of 2 Feb­ru­ary 2016 (with its imple­ment­ing decrees of 5 August) accen­tu­ates the author­i­ty of the patient, by decid­ing that advance direc­tives are bind­ing on the doc­tor, except in cas­es of vital emer­gency or if the doc­tor, after a col­le­gial pro­ce­dure, con­sid­ers that they are “man­i­fest­ly inap­pro­pri­ate or not in con­for­mi­ty with the med­ical sit­u­a­tion” (arti­cle 8).

In order to avoid ther­a­peu­tic relent­less­ness, in line with the 2002 law, the 2005 law adds to the duty not to engage in “dis­pro­por­tion­ate care” the duty to avoid “unrea­son­able obstinacy[4]”. When suf­fer­ing becomes too heavy to bear “in the advanced and ter­mi­nal phase of a seri­ous and incur­able dis­ease”, the law even allows the physi­cian, if there is no oth­er way to relieve the suf­fer­ing, to imple­ment a sedation[5] which may have the sec­ondary effect of short­en­ing the patien­t’s life. The 2016 law autho­rizes under cer­tain con­di­tions “a deep and con­tin­u­ous seda­tion caus­ing an alter­ation of con­scious­ness main­tained until death”. It is then accom­pa­nied by anal­ge­sia, i.e. the treat­ment of pain.


Accord­ing to CCNE, the debate is once again open on the legal­iza­tion of assist­ed suicide.

Anthropological and Ethical Issues

The 2016 law was passed while the appli­ca­tion of the pre­vi­ous 2005 law was far from being gen­er­alised. More than mov­ing towards a new law, we must ensure the prop­er appli­ca­tion of the very recent law, first in the sense of devel­op­ing a true pal­lia­tive cul­ture. Pal­lia­tive care is an expres­sion of med­i­cine that respects patients at the end of life and con­sid­ers their dig­ni­ty as inalienable[6]. They are “essen­tial” to med­ical practice[7]. They involve reg­u­lar dia­logue between care­givers, patients and their fam­i­lies, as well as with­in the med­ical team itself. It is in such dia­logue that the appli­ca­tion of “advance direc­tives” can serve the patient. To encour­age the time need­ed for accom­pa­ni­ment and the sin­gu­lar col­lo­qui­um, the cur­rent fund­ing sys­tem that favours the activ­i­ties asked for should be reviewed[8].

The 2016 law, by explic­it­ly leg­is­lat­ing the excep­tion­al med­ical prac­tice of “deep and con­tin­u­ous seda­tion” until death, rein­forces the require­ment of good prac­tices in this field, to avoid any con­fu­sion between seda­tion accom­pa­ny­ing the end of life and seda­tion that delib­er­ate­ly caus­es death. All the more so when this seda­tion is accom­pa­nied by anal­gesic treat­ments as well as the ces­sa­tion of nutri­tion and diet. On this sub­ject, the Société Française d’Ac­com­pa­g­ne­ment et de Soins Pal­li­at­ifs has pub­lished ref­er­ence documents[9].

The debate on assist­ed sui­cide is there­fore reopened. Accord­ing to CCNE, this prac­tice con­sists “in giv­ing a per­son the means to kill him­self”. It mobilis­es the inter­ven­tion of oth­ers but “places the respon­si­bil­i­ty for the final act on the per­son who asks for it[10]”. This would be “phar­ma­co­log­i­cal-phar­ma­co­log­i­cal sui­cide assistance[11]”, since the pres­ence of the physi­cian is not required when the lethal sub­stance is vol­un­tar­i­ly absorbed.

The request for its legal­iza­tion is based first of all on the will to respect the auton­o­my of the patient. How­ev­er, auton­o­my can­not be an absolute val­ue that iso­lates the patient: “The human being, from the begin­ning of his exis­tence, is a’be­ing in rela­tion’. Auton­o­my is rela­tion­al. It is exer­cised freely in the con­fi­dent sur­ren­der of one­self to anoth­er who remains atten­tive to the inte­gral respect of one’s dig­ni­ty. Weak­ness makes even greater use of rela­tion­ship and trust. Par­tic­u­lar­ly painful ago­nies are then invoked. Yet “the dying per­son does not usu­al­ly ask to die. Uncon­scious, even if he com­plains, he does not suf­fer more often[13]. It is true that agony that lasts can become intol­er­a­ble for the fam­i­ly. But should the dying per­son­’s life be end­ed to relieve the loved ones?

Per­mit­ting “assist­ed sui­cide” would cre­ate “a delib­er­ate break in the social bond. It would be in con­tra­dic­tion with sui­cide pre­ven­tion efforts (see O.N.S.), and risks lock­ing those con­cerned in despair. It would involve the coop­er­a­tion of care­givers and phar­ma­cists in an act lead­ing to death, and implic­it recog­ni­tion of the patien­t’s loss of dig­ni­ty. How­ev­er, it is always advis­able to encour­age a “respon­si­ble prox­im­i­ty” which takes care of the per­son in his dig­ni­ty with­out short­en­ing his life and with­out fight­ing unnec­es­sar­i­ly against his death[15].

Feb­ru­ary 1, 2018

[1] Arti­cle L. 1110-10 du Code de la san­té publique (CSP).
[2] En octo­bre 2017, le « Plan nation­al 2015–2018 pour le développe­ment des soins pal­li­at­ifs et l’accompagnement en fin de vie » n’avait atteint que 50% de ses objectifs.
[3] CSP Art. L.1111–4.
[4] Cf. Jacques Ricot, Penser la fin de vie, EHESP, 2017, p. 135–145.
[5] Emploi de médica­ments qui provo­quent un état incon­scient. Une séda­tion bien con­duite n’abrège pas la vie.
[6] Voir Jacques Ricot, Penser la fin de vie, op. cit., p. 259–290.
[7] Con­seil de l’Europe, Réso­lu­tion 1649, 28 jan­vi­er 2009.
[8] Cf. Mme Agnès Buzyn, Min­istre des sol­i­dar­ités et de la san­té, à Rennes le 4 jan­vi­er 2018, a évo­qué une recherche pour établir un finance­ment à par­tir du « par­cours de soin » plutôt qu’à par­tir de « l’activité ».
[10] CCNE, Avis n°121, Fin de vie, autonomie de la per­son­ne, volon­té de mourir, 13 juin 2013, p. 41.
[11] CCNE, Avis n°121, p. 42.
[12] Mgr Pierre d’Ornellas et alii, Fin de vie, un enjeu de fra­ter­nité, Sal­va­tor, 2015, p. 87–100.
[13] A. KAHN, L’ultime lib­erté ?, Plon, 2008, p. 31–32. Voir aus­si Fin de vie, un enjeu…, op. cit., p. 108–117.
[14] Mgr Pierre d’Ornellas, audi­tion au Con­seil Économique, Social et Envi­ron­nemen­tal, Jeu­di 11 jan­vi­er 2018. Voir aus­si Catéchisme de l’Église Catholique, n. 2280–2283.
[15] Cf. Mes­sage du pape FRANÇOIS, 18 novem­bre 2017 :–40-01-Message-du-Pape-Francois-Fin-de-vie-nov.-2017.pdf


Religious Helping Trafficking Victims along the Road of Recovery (ON-DEMAND VIDEO WEBINAR)

Religious Working In International Advocacy Against Human Trafficking (ON-DEMAND VIDEO WEBINAR)

Impact Of Human Trafficking On Health: Trauma (ON-DEMAND VIDEO WEBINAR)

Impact Of Human Trafficking On Health: Healing (ON-DEMAND VIDEO WEBINAR)

International Prosecution Of Human Trafficking — Where Are We Now? (ON-DEMAND VIDEO WEBINAR)

International Prosecution Of Human Trafficking — What can be done? (ON-DEMAND VIDEO WEBINAR)

International Prosecution Of Human Trafficking — Best Practices (ON-DEMAND VIDEO WEBINAR)

Demand As Root Cause For Human Trafficking – Sex Trafficking & Prostitution




Human Trafficking — Interview with Prof. Michel Veuthey, Order of Malta — 44th UN Human Right Council 2020

POPE’S PAYER INTENTION FOR FEBRUARY 2020: Hear the cries of migrants victims of human trafficking


Church on the frontlines in fight against human trafficking



Catholic social teaching

Doctrine sociale de l’Église catholique

Register to our series of webinars adlaudatosi on Human Trafficking


You have successfully registered !