Citizens' Convention on Euthanasia: "Please, Mr. President, rise to the challenge!"

Damien Le Guay is a philosopher, ethicist and lecturer.

He is a lecturer at HEC and teaches at the ethical space of Île-de-France and at the ethical space of Picardy.

He also teaches at IRCOM in Angers and is president of the National

Funeral

When euthanasia will be there...

One could hope that on so-called “society” subjects, politicians come out clearly.

Their personal credibility is at stake.

Are they driven by vital philosophical convictions or do they change their minds as public opinion dictates?

If they have convictions, they demonstrate authority.

Do they move according to the polls or do they remain anchored in a set of values?

If they move by following opinion, voters do not know what to expect and are worried when it will be necessary to apply a program.

In any case, this assurance of conviction is a powerful marker of voter support.

However, on the question of euthanasia, which is, contrary to appearances, an eminently political question, all the candidates are more or less clear on the question of euthanasia.

All, except the one who has every reason in the world to find himself victorious in the second round.

The presidential candidate felt that the "

".

Nice way to kick in touch!

And to add that "

.

Great way to please everyone without displeasing anyone!

And once proposals are made by this convention, he will submit them to Parliament or go through a referendum.

While postponing all decisions, he said to himself, not without an ounce of self-satisfaction, proud of the "

" on this subject and, on a personal level, "

" to this debate.

Read alsoMichel Houellebecq: “A civilization that legalizes euthanasia loses all right to respect”

Let's try to understand.

He is therefore so sensitive to this debate that he will delegate it to others.

He thinks this debate is important, but does not say clearly what he thinks about it, does not quantify his palliative ambition.

He is pleased with what has been done, even though everyone knows very well that nothing in particular has been done for five years, and that the new palliative care plan, which has just come out, is ambitious financially modest to say the least.

So where is this sensitivity to ethical issues in the presidential candidate?

We are looking for her.

When one has not, in oneself, "crystallized" one's reflection in order to advocate a "decision" that is as "educated" as possible, why ask citizens drawn by lot to "crystallize" both a judgment, and a decision,

and an opinion?

There is an obvious inconsistency here – not to say a tragic "at the same time" when it comes to settling a question of civilization.

Ambivalence that we find on the question of surrogacy when he affirms, still in this press conference, that he is firmly opposed to it, but that he is proud to have done everything to facilitate the adoption of children born abroad by this method.

So why condemn surrogacy and consider that Ukrainian women can “rent” their bellies for French people, with immediate effects in French law?

We refuse the causes here but accept the consequences – which amounts to validating the causes.

As for euthanasia, the "citizens' conventions", in general, make it possible to ask questions of French people who are unaware of the complexity of these subjects, most often young people, sensitive to the dominant opinion, and very little able

to draw all the consequences.

Shouldn't we first set the terms of the debate, make a diagnosis, establish a "problem" - as we say at Sciences Po?

Obviously, this subject requires those who approach it to be sufficiently mature to consider it properly, long-term work to grasp all of its complexity, numerous visits to palliative care units, in-depth hearings.

Will all this be possible within the framework of this convention?

I doubt.

Isn't it a question of approaching, for the future, the way of taking care of the weak, of prolonging life without exceeding the limits, of showing humanity to the end?

Damien LeGuay

And then, delegating to others makes it possible to offload a responsibility that is political in a thousand ways.

Isn't it a question of approaching, for the future, the way of taking care of the weak, of prolonging life without exceeding the limits, of showing humanity to the end?

Yes.

So !

On these sensitive issues that engage a certain model of society, isn't politics essential to settle the issues through a consequent deliberative process – as was the case during the work that gave rise to the Leonetti law.

If the little prodigy of the Élysée, who knows everything about everything, and decides everything for everyone in the secrecy of his verticality, admits, on this subject of euthanasia, his mute perplexity, what should we think of it? , a short distance from the

presidential election ?

Isn't that an escape?

A way to please everyone without disappointing anyone?

A delaying tactic?

We all know that the MPs of the majority are rather on the left (especially on societal issues) and its electorate largely on the right – and therefore conservative.

We know that on April 8, 2021, macronists of all persuasions, under the leadership of Brother Falorni, voted for an article of law in favor of euthanasia – even if it remained a dead letter.

We also know that some right-wing deputies, like Éric Worth, have changed their minds on this subject to “show their credentials” to the Macronist deputies they were about to join – which is now done.

And we know that the epicenter of the French electorate has shifted today to the right, and even to the right of the right,

To read alsoAziliz Le Corre: “Euthanasia, behind the good intentions, the risk of gearing?”

Postponing the debate is a great way to slalom to avoid obstacles.

Salute the artist!

The artist who does not say the bottom of his thought, while letting Line Renaud proclaim, a few months ago, that euthanasia is in the program of candidate Emmanuel Macron for the second five-year term.

This is a superb way of remaining in the expectation, of establishing an ambiguity of choice, of opening the site of euthanasia without completely assuming it.

Is this worthy of a president who is a disciple of Paul Ricœur?

No.

He is too smart to know when to stay on his Aventin before the elections, and too cunning not to give reason a little later, after the elections, to Line Renaud.

The string is thick, the maneuvers obvious.

The second five-year term will put the

What maneuvers?

On the one hand, this "citizen's convention" which, as always (we have already seen on the issue of the climate and, in December 2013 on this same issue of the end of life) will show amateurism in the analysis , and radical solutions in the recommendations – and euthanasia is a radical solution.

On the other hand, “on the ethical level” by a movement in two stages.

First step: the choice of future members of the CCNE (National Consultative Ethics Committee) to be partly renewed very soon – renewal which has been waiting for weeks – and which will say a lot about future ethical options.

Unfortunately, for years, we have politicized these appointments far from the recognition of independence, far from the courage to give full freedom to ethical bodies.

Second stage: CCNE's opinion on this question.

He was expected last December.

He has been waiting ever since.

Everything is frozen waiting for the opportune moment.

And the indiscretions suggest that this opinion is favorable to assisted suicide and also (it is believed) to euthanasia.

The president will let his presidential majority vote for all euthanasia measures without having had to take the initiative.

Damien LeGuay

Everything seems to be sewn with white thread.

First of all, ethics will topple over – whereas the CCNE has always opposed until now any concession made to “medical assistance in dying”.

Then we will launch a “citizen convention” which will go in the direction of the wind.

And finally, relieved but happy to achieve this, the president will let his presidential majority vote for all euthanasia measures without having had to take the initiative.

So yes, let's regret this lack of courage or this skill – which, in macronie, comes to the same thing.

We regret the performances of the artist when they are made on the back of a carefully considered choice.

I invite the future president, when he has stepped over the presidential election, considered by him as a technical formality, to spend a few days in a palliative care unit, to talk quietly with those who work day by day to improve the “end of life”.

I invite him to be worthy of his master Paul Ricœur: to take the time to reflect, far from the elements of language of the euthanasia party and to do so in his soul and conscience.

Read alsoEuthanasia: “The framed freedom for the dying, to choose their end of life, is a matter of human dignity”

I invite the future re-president to get out of the maneuvers and to forge his conviction (insofar as it has not already been made behind the uncertainties) by measuring the real issues, the real consequences, the real upheavals, the real incompatibility between euthanasia and palliative care.

He will have to take into account, if he rises to the level of the subject, the massive rejection of euthanasia by the palliative teams, because of the deliberate and pernicious confusion, in carrying out euthanasia, as is the cases in Canada, "medical care".

Rejection of the idea that doctors themselves can tomorrow offer their patients an injection of a lethal solution.

He will then have to hear what the professionals in the field want, what they will refuse to do,

those who wish not to twist their principle, those who will make use of the "conscience clause" (if it is granted to them), those who will change jobs or resign if necessary - according to the terms of a vast survey carried out during the last palliative care congress.

The president will then be able to take up the analyzes of his master Ricœur on the freedom that one gives to oneself, believing oneself to be alone in the world, and that which one imposes on others - with a violence all the stronger because t affects subjects weakened by illness and in a state of extreme psychic weakness.

When euthanasia becomes a right, a right for all, it will have an incentive legitimacy, as if it were one “solution” among others, with the same ethical quality as the other solutions.

Damien LeGuay

When euthanasia becomes a right, a right for all, it will have an incentive legitimacy, as if it were one “solution” among others, with the same ethical quality as the other solutions.

However, it is not.

The Minister of Health himself, Olivier Véran, having rightly said that the difference between palliative care and euthanasia was not a difference of degree but of nature.

By nature!

We will then change the world.

We will then switch to a society that will accept terminal solutions as "necessary" for the proper functioning of the hospital.

Is this what we want?

Euthanasia is an attractive idea with calamitous effects.

This supposed “freedom”, promoted as such by supporters of euthanasia, will further weaken the extreme weakness of people at the end of life.

An easy “solution” will be offered to them.

Is this facility in line with our base of fraternity?

No.

Because we know that the French, far from trompe-l'oeil polls, want above all, in such circumstances, to be first accompanied, then helped to relieve all their suffering, while fighting together against "therapeutic relentlessness" .

And at the end of the day, when all these essential solutions are not implemented, expertise or means, the same French, lip service, consider, at only 24%, to examine a solution of euthanasia.

Read alsoErwan Le Morhedec, the lawyer who dreams of another end of life

Yes, Mr. President, for the next five years, please take the time to reflect and listen neither to the "long sobs of the violins" of the euthanasia party, nor to those who know everything in advance.

Consult, work.

Wise men of the republic are at your disposal – like MM.

Leonetti, and Didier Sicard.

Palliative sages are ready to share their experiences with you – such as Claire Fourcade, Anne de la tour and Jean-Marie Gomas... Let's not forget the sages of ethics - those who put ethics before their appointment .

Please rise to the challenge!

Thank you yes!

Grace is not only a right that you are the only one to have, it is also a political duty when it is necessary, with infinite prudence, to change the laws on life and death.