17 July 2026

Following prolonged debates over several years, France's National Assembly has approved legislation permitting assisted dying for those facing terminal illness. Each request requires evaluation by a multidisciplinary panel that includes a physician. Because the Senate has turned down the measure repeatedly in the past, Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu intends to forward it to the Constitutional Council.

Open/close all quotes

The details of the new rules are being hidden from view, argues Gauthier Vaillant, editor-in-chief of L'Opinion:

“Reality has been obscured throughout the discussions. Words like 'euthanasia' and 'assisted suicide' were sidestepped, and supporters worked hard to downplay what is happening: France is now authorising help to end life. ... Described as 'extremely strict' conditions? In fact the French approach ranks among the least restrictive, with unclear rules on remaining lifespan, a so-called collective review that often involves only one doctor, and a mere two-day waiting period. ... True choice is absent when palliative care reaches fewer than half of those who qualify.”

Libération welcomes the outcome:

“Finally! ... The path was long and difficult, yet this step forward, backed by public opinion, deserves recognition. ... One concern remains: conservative groups have opposed nearly every social advance in recent times, and the current climate feels more resistant than before. ... With the presidential election set for next April and May, the law may have little chance to take hold before then. That is unfortunate.”

Taz correspondent Rudolf Balmer supports the change:

“Families who longed for medical help to ease unbearable suffering can now find some comfort, as can the doctors and nurses who previously felt unable to act. ... Like the earlier legalisation of abortion, opponents from conservative circles will continue their resistance. ... Practical rollout will bring fresh challenges. ... It is positive to note that France can still advance on social policy questions, something far from certain lately.”

Paul Ackermann of Le Temps stresses that democratic processes held firm:

“Personal views were honoured and conscience votes respected across parties. Despite heated public exchanges that sometimes resembled a cultural clash, parliament delivered a reform many citizens sought. ... No major unrest occurred and the discussion stayed measured. The public was prepared, and lawmakers responded. This shows the system can still work amid difficulties. A model worth following on other topics.”

La Stampa notes France has faced the issue directly:

“For three years French lawmakers examined one of the central questions of our era. ... Their exchanges reached newspapers, broadcasts and online platforms, sparking wider public conversation. Complete agreement may never arrive and adjustments could follow, yet this is how a nation progresses: by tackling hard problems openly.”