Rights For the Handicapped and Euthanasia : an Impossible Coexistence

In the current debate on the legalisation of euthanasia and assisted suicide, the handicapped have regularly expressed their views to the public and decision-makers. According to the "Soulager mais pas tuer" (Relieve but don't kill) collective, which Alliance VITA is associated with, the prophetic voice of Philippe Pozzo di Borgo has always defended the most vulnerable. In his last book, "Le Promeneur immobile" (The immobile Stroller), he calls upon society to avoid "letting fear dictate its law" asserting that "Euthanasia is indicative of a community which is disintegrating and resigning".

Recently, the "Les éligibles" (The eligible) collective pointed out the disconnection between the aspiration for an inclusive society and the reality of the lack of means allocated to solidarity : "We have just passed the 20^th anniversary of the law dated 11^th February 2005 for equal rights and opportunities, the participation and citizenship of the handicapped, of which one of the fundamentals referred to the obligation of collective solidarity. However, today all the evidence points to our inability to provide any technical and humane accompaniment worthy of the name for those in need". Elisa Rojas, a lawyer and member of the "Jusqu'au bout solidaires" (Solidarity till the end) collective, who is herself handicapped, stated during an interview for "L'Humanité" newspaper: "I have indeed been opposed to this text from the very beginning because it is both useless and dangerous. The idea of linking assisted suicide, euthanasia and palliative care, and claiming that they can coexist, is a blatant manipulation on the part of its promoters. Provoking death is not a care, since care is intended, on the contrary, to improve, maintain and protect physical or mental health."

The call by the United Nations on the subject of the French Bill on "Assistance in Dying"

Last June, the United Nations Committee for the rights of the handicapped called on the Government following the acceptance of the "Falorni Bill" by the National Assembly at its first reading. The Committee questioned several points of the legislative process. It questions in particular:

1. Whether the eligibility criteria (serious and incurable disease, unbearable suffering …) could be discriminatory. Indeed they "appear to be based on perceptions of the quality and value of the life of the handicapped, and in particular the idea that "suffering" is intrinsic in handicap, without recognising that inequality and discrimination cause and increase the "suffering" of the handicapped."
2. How will the handicapped "be protected against coercion, undue influence and misuse of power".

The letter also asks for justifications on the obstruction offence, the short 48-hour time-delay before conducting a euthanasia or assisted suicide, the ability of people and their representatives to take part in the legislative process.

The Committee had already called upon France to investigate the high suicide rate in those suffering from autism. In 2021, it recommended the French State "to reinforce the measures aimed at implementing a national strategy for the prevention of suicide for the handicapped, with specific measures targeting those suffering from autism or psychosocial handicap, and to guarantee a close consultation and active participation of the handicapped through their representative organisations".

The end of the letter strongly underlines the question of the lack of means to enable people to live: "The Committee has received credible information indicating that the approval of the above-mentioned Bill constitutes a violation of the obligation on the part of the State to respect, protect and guarantee the right to live for the handicapped".

Logically, the Committee consequently questions the fiction of "free choice" in the real life of people in the absence of a guaranteed right to live with dignity: "The information available to the Committee also indicates that the Bill, if it is approved, would cause a false dichotomy concerning the notion of "choice", according to the principle that if the handicapped are suffering, the State can legitimately authorise their death without providing any guarantees to ensure the provision of support, and on the basis of assumptions which minimise the multitude of support options which could enable the handicapped to live a dignified life."

Experience in fact supports this concern. In Canada, it is well known that invalids call for euthanasia in the absence of support. For example, Sathya Kovac, suffering from ALS, opted for euthanasia due to lack of support to remain at her home any longer. She told her loved ones "In the end, it was not the genetic disease which killed me, it was the system."

The response by France: The evasive path

The response by France was sent at the end of August. Within the government under François Bayrou, Charlotte Parmentier-Lecocq is the minister in charge of autonomy and handicap. She has been a supporter of euthanasia for several years. The 9-page letter states from the outset that "the parliamentary process is not complete."

The inclusion of handicapped adults is an equality measure according to the response. The reason given is that those people already have the possibility of resorting to the process, introduced by the 2016 law, of deep and continuous sedation until death. Implicitly, assisted suicide is presented as an extension of sedation. Such a presentation obscures a major difference: the intention of causing death which is at the heart of the claimed "assistance in dying".

The response also makes reference to the parallel bill on palliative care, in order to ensure that measures are taken to accompany people in their need for care. As has been underlined several times by Alliance VITA, the parallel does not hold. The Bill on palliative care is not secured financially, and the 10-year objective to improve access to such care is out of line in relation to the rapid application of assisted suicide if it is finally adopted.

The reply as given ignores the concrete reality of the handicapped. Many associations have warned about the deterioration of the effective accompaniment provided in recent years.

Finally, the letter endeavours to defend the semantics of the Bill. On page 8, it states that "The use of the term assisted suicide is not considered as reflecting the content of the Bill inasmuch as the Bill establishes very strict conditions in order to be eligible." It is well-known, however, that the so-called "very strict" conditions potentially include hundreds of thousands of people. The sentence suggests that it is the conditions which define the suicide. Quite a strange argument, which ignores the very meaning of the word suicide: to kill oneself.

The United Nations Committee for the rights of the handicapped has raised fundamental questions on the "Assistance in dying" Bill. In the real life of people, this Bill is incompatible with the obligation toward solidarity, which is their due.