The French parliament is pushing a extremist euthanasia bill. Will your conscience talk to the Seine?

pch24.pl 3 weeks ago

The debate on the euthanasia law on the euphemistic name "right to die worthy" returns to the French Parliament. Most French argue the current form of the bill, although it is hard to talk in this country of condemning euthanasia for spiritual or moral reasons. While there is an argument for protecting the weakest, the political rush to enforce this law is the first. It is pointed out that euthanasia and alleged "assisted suicide" have never been the subject of a genuine public political debate. The Act has been truncated for years, although changes are officially presented as "fundamental social law". However, there is no separate media discussion, at a time erstwhile access to high-quality palliative care, alternatively than "helping" to accelerate death, remains the main problem for more than half of the French.

Fears besides concern euthanasia, which will over time hit the weakest and the independent. This shows the example of countries that have already legalized euthanasia, and in time this practice is abused there. Dominique Reynié, prof. of political sciences (the EPP Institute), talks about a certain "social instinct" and "social intuition", which suggests that before the anticipation of death is allowed, all support must be guaranteed in the worthy natural end of life. It turns out that almost half of people in request of palliative care in France do not have access to it due to wellness failure, and the authorities at the same time propose... euthanasia.

Prof. Xavier Raufer adds that "foreign experience strengthens these concerns". In different countries, the alleged "assisted suicide" rapidly becomes a margin and euthanasia dominates. In Belgium, although both forms are allowed, 100 percent of specified deaths are no longer "suicides", but simply euthanasia. Raufer recalls that assisted suicide requires full awareness and ability to act until the last minute, which is uncommon in people who are severely sick and suffering. Documented examples from Belgium, the Netherlands and Canada show very real abuses, specified as euthanasia without informing relatives about it, secret euthanasia and gradually extending death criteria, including minors.

Dechristianized France may not discuss the specified immorality of euthanasia, but bases its distrust on the empirical analysis of systemic effects observed in another countries.

A separate problem is the legitimacy of deputies to introduce specified a bill. specified a postulate was not on the program of any party. Now politicians are talking about the “freedom of conscience” of Members in voting. However, MEPs do not vote either on an election mandate or on the basis of a political agenda. Changing an crucial law based on "individual consciences" is simply a alternatively risky move. Members are aware of this and in the first reading of the bill "in favour" voted only 305 of the 577 current Members of the Assembly (305 Members voted in favour, 199 against and 57 abstained). In the meantime, the forcefully pushed law will change the penal code, the public wellness code, and even the legal definition of death. All another consequences are hard to foretell at this stage. Its text opens the way to broad interpretations, and the safeguards are questionable.

It should besides be noted that opposition to euthanasia over the Seine is weakening. This is simply a consequence of propaganda, which depicts this immoral act in an idealized form as a "free, conscious, individual choice of man in the face of unbearable and irreparable physical suffering," or almost an act of pity towards those suffering. However, this explanation does not correspond to the reality that can be seen in countries where euthanasia has become a common practice.

There is besides a very dangerous evidence in the French Act of “obstruction”, which could affect relatives, guardians, psychiatrists or another persons supporting a sick individual who express doubts about his decision to “suicide” or effort to hold specified irreversible decision. The explanation of this provision may straight lead to the designation of the protection of susceptible persons as a criminal offence, as is already the case with the defence of unborn children. The thought of euthanasia is to decision slow from the request for solidarity with sick and suffering people, to a state with a strategy based on discrimination against people due to disabilities. Nor does anyone specifically hide the economical factor, the cost of the "end of life" for increasingly indebted healthcare.

The interesting thing is that in the justification of the project, MP MoDem Olivier Falorni talks about the bill, “for which the vast majority of our fellow citizens are waiting”. Meanwhile, the French do not request legalisation of euthanasia and assisted suicide, but they want the government to supply access to palliative care. specified an opinion is shared by people regardless of political sympathy and what social group they belong to. The opposition is common, and the strongest is expressed among young people under 35, both among Catholics, for example Muslims, and even in the extremist left. Fundapol's survey shows that the French are afraid of rapidly extending the bill to further groups of susceptible people, e.g. minors or people with intellectual disabilities, as well as the poorest.

Against the bill in its current form is simply a full of 51 percent of respondents. People aged 50–64 object to 50 percent, and those aged 25–34 argue even 53 percent. The top opposition to this bill is raised by young people, especially at the age of 18–24, as well as spiritual people. But there is no unanimity here. Those declaring their religion opposed euthanasia in 53%. This percent besides affected Catholics and increased to 60 percent for practitioners (60 percent). Among the practicing Muslims it was 57 percent. In this case, however, it appears that pro-eutanasia propaganda has made crucial progress.

Bogdan Dobosh