Francis Chouat, is LREM deputy of the 1st district of Essonne.
To discover
Michel Houellebecq: "A civilization which legalizes euthanasia loses all rights to respect"
56/256.
56 to postpone consideration of the Falorni bill.
256, from all political stripes, to debate and vote on it.
This April 8, 2021, in a crowded Chamber (which is not customary for a text from a
parliamentary
"
niche
"), my exasperation at the unbearable obstruction of 5 LR deputies suddenly gave way the feeling of participating in an exceptional moment in parliamentary life.
The one where national representation meets, expresses, and formalizes by law a deep renewal in society, which has matured for a long time.
How to characterize it?
First, by trying not to caricature it, neither in one direction nor the other.
On the one hand, there are not the “
euthanizers
” dedicated to national indignity by Mr. Houellebecq and, on the other, those indifferent to the suffering of the last moments of life.
And should I recall that etymologically, euthanasia means "
happy death
" in ancient Greek?
There are no winners or losers;
especially since the text could not pass the stage of its full adoption.
A supervised freedom, intended for dying whose sufferings are such that the patient's choice to shorten them is a fundamental human right.
The individual and societal concern of the “
end of life
” has crossed French society for decades.
It animates debates throughout Europe and the world, to the point of being translated into numerous legislative decisions, from Canada to Spain, from Colombia to Belgium, via Portugal, the Netherlands, etc.
Who would allow themselves to trick these democracies into wanting to practice mass euthanasia?
Read also:
End of life: when citizens' conventions replace democracy
In France, more than respectable humanist associations, intellectual and cultural personalities, animate the debates and act so that a right is legally recognized: that of choosing, as much as possible, one's way of dying with a noble requirement;
the human dignity to which the moment of death, which is part of life to the end, must not escape.
This requirement is not just a hunch or a simple personal aspiration.
She is not driven by I do not know what search for "
comfort
" in the face of the fear of suffering.
If it were only that, we could, in fact, remain at the stage of the Leonetti-Clayes law of 2016 (itself resulting from a parliamentary bill).
It makes it possible to approach palliative care in a more humane way for the dying as well as for their loved ones.
But besides that it is not applied satisfactorily - and it is no coincidence that Olivier Véran took advantage of the initiatives of the deputies Touraine and Falorni to announce a new emergency plan - it does not exhaust the subject. the choice of its end of life.
The deputy Roman had said it in these terms during the adoption of the aforementioned law.
To read also:
End of life: "The law in no way endorses assisted suicide"
Scientific reports, parliamentary study groups and ethics committees have laid down legal, ethical and philosophical terms on the right to die with dignity.
They converge on the need for France to take an additional step towards a new freedom.
Not a "
freedom, period
".
A supervised freedom, intended for the dying whose incurable nature of their illnesses and the sufferings they cause are such that the choice, by the patient, surrounded by trained, voluntary doctors, to shorten them is a fundamental right to be so. human.
In another area, the PACS, then marriage for all, finally the PMA for all, have at their heart the same requirement: the freedom to choose the direction of one's life, to be master of one's destiny.
All these legislative proposals, all these associative, scientific work, obviously have a legal dimension which justifies that the legislator, surrounded by the Council of State, should take it up.
But let's not forget the basis of this type of law.
It is first of all philosophical, even anthropological.
Our societies have made considerable progress in constantly improving human dignity, including in the area of health.
The combination of an individual aspiration and moral collective demands is a permanent challenge and needs honest and sincere confrontations.
Amid the noise and fury that accompanied the adoption of the Veil law in 1975, it was the freedom to choose that prevailed.
No one would dream of questioning it.
In a completely different field, the PACS, then marriage for all, finally the PMA for all, have at their heart the same requirement: the freedom to choose the direction of one's life, to be master of one's destiny.
56/256… It is not the law of the majority which must impose itself as a brazen law, stifling all questioning.
It is simply the requirement that we do not remain with an unfinished decision.
Only the government and its majority can resume the path thus marked out.
No need to wait, again, to do it.
Parliament has done what the Constitution allows it to do: legislate.
It is up to the sovereign people to decide.
For that a law in due and due form must be adopted.
Let's do it.
