Laurent Frémont, 29, is fatherless. He is committed to ensuring that a “
opposable right
” is recognized for visits by relatives, whatever the health conditions.
FIGAROVOX.-After the death of your father, you wrote a column in Marianne in which you denounced "the irresponsibility of the administration and the inhumanity of the managers of health establishments".
You couldn't say goodbye to your father.
What exactly happened?
Laurent FRÉMONT.-
After being infected by the Covid, my father, 70 years old and in good health, was transferred to a private clinic in Aix-en-Provence.
Right away, we were told that we could not visit it;
it was the same after his remission, when he was awake and absolutely more contagious.
He was therefore alone when he woke up from the artificial coma;
and still alone when he died, a week later.
However, after his resuscitation, your father was twice tested negative for Covid ...
And even a third time on the day of his death!
During the first confinement, we complained about not having tests.
Now, what are they for, if they do not even make it possible to lift the forced isolation imposed on patients, even negative ones?
Among all the “
Covid deaths
”, how many are those who actually died of another pathology, often contracted in the very services that were supposed to treat them?
You have also been deprived of paying him a last tribute before his beer.
Why?
It is the ultimate inhumanity.
The doctor carelessly ticks the box “
immediate beer
”, which deprives us of any possible homage to my father's remains.
This is placed in an airtight cover and sent to the morgue, before being placed in a sealed coffin.
The ban on paying homage to the deceased constitutes a major anthropological break, for which political leaders will be guilty in the eyes of history.
This prohibition is quite simply absurd.
It is dictated by a completely irrational fear: there is no evidence that contamination has occurred through contact with a body.
And even so!
It goes without saying that all precautions would have been taken, especially in such a context.
However, being able to “say goodbye” to the dead is essential in any grieving process.
The last sacraments, funeral rites and funeral vigils have punctuated our passage from life to death for millennia.
They even constitute the foundations of all civilization, connecting the dead and the living.
The ban on paying homage to the deceased, seeing his face for the last time and meeting for his funeral constitutes a major anthropological break, for which political leaders will be guilty in the eyes of history.
Were you able to celebrate a funeral under these conditions?
In November, funerals were limited to 30 people.
We have a large family and my father, a still active surgeon, was esteemed by patients and colleagues who wanted to pay him a last tribute.
To read also:
Stéphanie Bataille: "I did not have the right to see my father again, while he called out loudly to me"
We tried to request an exemption from the authorities (we are talking about a cathedral with more than a thousand places!), But the sub-prefect of Carpentras informed us that he would issue a ticket to anyone exceeding this gauge, including if they were was on the forecourt… We had to break this aberrant regulation by organizing a clandestine funeral mass, in the open air, in our garden.
It was our only way of being able to organize these funerals with dignity, without having to make a painful sorting.
I say it without hesitation: the natural law is superior to the law of men, especially when the latter is cruel and absurd.
We are helplessly witnessing the omnipotence of the caregiver, who behaves like the owner of his patient's body and the master of the information he deigns to pass on to relatives.
You also denounce the "climate of lies" of health establishments?
We are helplessly witnessing the omnipotence of the caregiver, who behaves like the owner of his patient's body and the master of the information he deigns to pass on to relatives.
The doctor who was in charge of my father only called us twice: the first, to recommend that we “
not call him
”, making sure that he would warn us if the situation deteriorated;
the second, to announce the death of my father, officially due to Covid.
In the meantime, we could only glean some information from evasive nurses, always in a hurry to end our rare calls.
Without any mention, of course, of the abrupt deterioration of my father's condition in the last three days of his life.
Beyond the total lack of information, we were also confronted with the lies of this clinic.
It was only after obtaining (with great difficulty) my father's medical file and having it analyzed by a doctor, that we realized that his death was due to a nosocomial infection contracted in this service.
These lies dishonor medicine, so does the very trust that patients and their families place (quite legitimately in most cases) in the medical profession.
Do you think that many other families are affected?
This tragic situation is, alas, the lot of tens of thousands of families, in hospitals as well as in clinics and nursing homes.
It was brought to light from the first confinement by Marie de Hennezel in her very moving The Forbidden Farewell (Plon, 2020).
Since then, the admirable commitment of Stéphanie Draber known as Bataille and her petition (signed by more than 40,000 people) have made it possible to collect thousands of similar stories.
But fortunately we have many testimonies that show that some caregivers and managers are showing admirable humanity in these difficult times.
Who do you think is responsible?
Is it the responsibility of the administration and the managers?
Of the government?
Are the staff overwhelmed?
The government has given instructions, but apparently does not care about their application, leaving a margin of freedom to each establishment.
Obviously, managers want to protect themselves from any blame.
The sinister mortuary accounting marks the spirits, and we must avoid seeing his establishment singled out.
The count of the deceased is important, but is it relevant to have only this criterion to judge a hospital or a clinic?
We are talking about fundamental subjects for what makes our humanity, and this cannot be reduced to a simple accounting approach.
The staff are certainly overwhelmed.
But why shouldn't the directorates put someone in charge of relations with the families?
We could thus facilitate access to patients - obviously, with all the measures required by prudence, and by not increasing the number of visits excessively.
If it is a question of means, I think that families or communities would be ready to contribute a little to the cost of the necessary equipment to avoid a potential contagion.
Read also:
Covid-19: the obstacle course to visit hospitalized relatives
I would add that staff are unfortunately often victims of managers' directives.
This situation turns upside down even against a good number of caregivers who find themselves forced to apply regulations and protocols that their deep morals condemn.
Some have found the strength to go against the pressures by following whatever their conscience tells them.
I would like to pay homage to them, and encourage as many of their colleagues as possible to demonstrate the same humanity by opposing their conscientious objection to arbitrary and degrading instructions.
More fundamentally, I think that we cannot do without a deep reflection on a health system which seems to have entered a worrying civilizational winter, of which the Covid is only the revealer.
The sudden rupture of emotional ties causes deep despair in many patients, starting with the oldest who allow themselves to die of grief and loneliness.
Many observers see in the management of the Covid crisis and in the confinement an immense progress of civilization than to do everything to protect the most vulnerable… Do you share this point of view?
Why do you speak instead of a decline in civilization?
By wanting to "
save lives
", we weaken the living and injure life, reducing us to our simple physical condition.
This situation generates untold trauma and suffering, the effects of which will last for years to come.
Indeed, there remains a feeling of guilt that nothing can erase.
We are doomed to relive the last days of the one we lost, with haunting questions: "What
could I have done to accompany my father on the evening of his life?"
Did I fail in my role as a son by leaving him hostage to "
caregivers
" who kept him in forced isolation?
How could I have spared my mother this sordid situation?
".
Even unconsciously, one can only feel guilty and responsible for having in some way abandoned the loved one, especially at a time when he was in such vulnerability and distress.
I will even go further: these “
health precautions
” are in fact deadly.
The sudden breakdown of emotional ties causes deep despair in many patients, starting with the oldest.
Feeling abandoned, no longer finding the will to live, some people literally let themselves die of grief and loneliness.
This situation is intolerable.
Let's not be afraid of words: some white coats are now stained with the blood of patients who have been left to die.
And this health crisis is only the revealing of the slide of medicine towards a cold and materialist conception, governed by profitability and technique.
Taken in the name of "
humanist
"
principles
, these decisions have in fact generated great inhumanity.
We see here all the limits of political action governed by experts and scientists who, under cover of good intentions, only accelerate the return to barbarism.
What do you expect from the government?
The government must first have the humility to recognize the deep trauma it has imposed on thousands of French people.
Let him also take responsibility for the iniquitous action of the managers, which he allowed to act with impunity.
I do not know if this will come to appease the countless sufferings endured but this act of responsibility would honor its authors.
But I want to go further: the government must not stop at declarations of intent.
A “
enforceable right
” to visits by relatives, whatever the health circumstances,
must be included as quickly
as possible.
Any establishment violating this fundamental right could be compelled by the urgent referral judge to open the doors of his services, obviously with all the necessary precautions.
This simple measure would put a stop to abuses that have lasted too long.
Parliamentarians are already keen to tackle this vital subject.
In the meantime, I want to send a clear message to families facing this kind of situation: the ban on visits has no legal basis.
Beat you.
Solicit all possible media or political relays.
Do not give in to medical arbitrariness.
It is only on this condition that you will avoid obsessive regrets and that you will be able, I hope, to be able to assist your loved ones with all the compassion which makes our humanity.
