Christophe Foltzenlogel is a lawyer at the European Center for Law and Justice. This association assists the lawyers of Vincent Lambert's parents with the European Court of Human Rights and the UN.
The memory is certainly still vivid in the memory of the French. On July 11, 2019, Doctor Sanchez put an end to Vincent Lambert's days by depriving him of hydration and food. Agony a few days before Vincent Lambert, severely disabled, dies of thirst, to the sad satisfaction of some.
What has happened since? What memory, what lessons and conclusions should be drawn a year after the facts? The first observable reality is that Vincent Lambert was not the only, neither the first nor the last man to be euthanized in France because of his disability.
All of France has heard of Vincent Lambert, of his difficulties in communicating with others following his car accident, of the ill-treatment he suffered, of his parents' fight to help him survive. However, many comparable stories take place in France without obtaining the same media visibility. Some euthanasies are performed discreetly by doctors; others with the agreement of relatives. In many other cases, there is a ripple in the family, but ultimately, with time and a dose of relativism, everyone accepts the decision of the medical team. Finally, certain situations are nevertheless brought to justice. The lawyers of Vincent Lambert's parents, because of their notoriety, have themselves been contacted numerous times to take care of cases involving patients in a poor relationship condition for whom the doctor or the medical team were urging him. cessation of care and feeding. The few dozen cases currently pending or recently tried before all French courts are only the tip of the iceberg. There is indeed a "black figure" of euthanasia in France. A number which exists but which it is impossible to know in the absence of legal or administrative proceedings.
There is indeed a "black figure" of euthanasia in France. A number which exists but which it is impossible to know in the absence of legal or administrative proceedings.And even if a contentious procedure sometimes takes place, the time for justice seems very long. Only the UN is still seized of the complaint of Vincent Lambert's parents against France. The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities had asked France to maintain Vincent Lambert's diet for the duration of the procedure. The French Government contested the very authority of the Committee and ignored it. The case is under examination and a conviction of France is more than probable, but in how long? Many other disabled people will have been euthanized by then. While our governments have repeatedly used the United Nations and international law to chorus certain countries, they were quick to deny any authority to the United Nations in this matter. What will they do with a UN condemnation?
No one, judge or lawyer, doctor or politician, none of those in favor of the death of Vincent Lambert has expressed the slightest regret since. The Defender of Rights has left. The Minister of Health too ...
It happens in France that doctors euthanize people because of their handicap because they judge that their life is no longer worth living.A year after his death, the suffering of Vincent Lambert will have made it possible to explain to everyone the reality of the facts and their justification: it happens in France that doctors euthanize people because of their disability because they judge that their life does not is more worth living. In the name of a certain idea of dignity and compassion, a majority of French people now accept, in principle, the idea that certain lives are no longer worth living; that it is acceptable for a third party to make the decision to end it.
The other lesson is that of the sad indifference of the majority of the population. The confinement and the current situation have only accentuated and further revealed this indifference and abandonment suffered by people at the end of life or in specialized institutes. Faced with the risk of contamination, the government further isolated these people by prohibiting family and friendly visits. Those who were already alone and in fragile health found themselves even more isolated, and few were those who denounced this abandonment. The limitation to the number of 20 people who could attend a burial ceremony was perhaps the paroxysmal manifestation of the change in our society in its conception of life, death and dignity.
The conclusion is that the death of Vincent Lambert was not a "medical error" or a "miscarriage of justice", nor even an exception, but rather a public manifestation of the contemporary concept of dignity and of its artificial compassion.