top of page

Dying on one’s own terms: France’s new law

Martin Omnès

The Student World Press correspondent for France

18 sep 2026

France’s adoption of an assisted-dying law shows a growing tolerance towards this practice among Western European countries. However, the law’s path towards its adoption revealed a French society divided on bioethical questions and broader tensions between European countries’ frameworks.

© Assemblée nationale

At the end of a long-lasting legislative journey, France joins the restricted list of countries having adopted laws authorizing assisted dying. Approved by the Constitutional Council, France’s highest jurisdiction, the law was officially enacted on the 18th of August 2026 and is expected to take effect in 2027. Although the law represents a breakthrough for France, the framework on bioethical issues it implements still seems narrower than the more permissive assisted-dying systems of European countries such as Belgium or the Netherlands.

The law conditions the access to assisted suicide with definitive criteria, making it more of last resort medical solution than a universal right. Accessing l’aide à mourir (“help to die “) requires the applicant to be at least eighteen years old and hold French nationality or reside in France on a stable and regular basis. The patient additionally needs to physically suffer from a life-threatening, terminal illness. Access to assisted dying also requires the free, informed and repeated consent of the patient.

These criteria exclude conditions defined only by psychological suffering, a distinction that sets the French model apart from the more lenient Dutch and Belgian frameworks, where psychological suffering can, under some circumstances, qualify.

But why such a restrictive text, compared to the 105 proposals issued by the Citizen’s convention on end-of-life care which President Emmanuel Macron initiated in October 2022? The answer lies partly in the bill’s long and complex adoption process. The original text was delayed by the dissolution of the National Assembly, France’s lower chamber of Parliament, in June 2024, and reintroduced as two separate bills in 2025. The first, reinforcing access to palliative care, was adopted in May 2026 with far less turmoil as the second text. Creating the actual right to aid in dying, this bill underwent a fiercer political battle in Parliament: Approved three times by the National Assembly and rejected three times by the more conservative-leaning Senate, the parliamentary shuttle ended only when the lower chamber was given the deciding vote by the government on 15 July 2026.

That long-lasting adoption process allowed for a massive opposition to form and influence the lawmaking process, forcing the bill’s sponsors to make compromises. Critics gathered around the belief that assisted-dying threatens human dignity and risks framing severely ill people as burdens instead of patients in need of care. The Société Française d'Accompagnement et de Soins Palliatifs (French Society for Support and Palliative Care, SFAP) notably criticized the government for its lack of investment in palliative care, often flagged as underfunded and unevenly distributed on the French territory, a situation the SFAP argues shouldn’t result in making death the easier option to offer.

"Although the law represents a breakthrough for France, the framework on bioethical issues it implements still seems narrower than the more permissive assisted-dying systems of Europe"

Supporters of the law countered that this argument underestimated what was actually at stake for patients. Associations such as the Association pour le Droit à Mourir dans la Dignité (Association for the Right to Die with Dignity, ADMD) argued that assisted dying extends a freedom that French law had already granted in principle: Patients can refuse or halt treatment under the 2016 Claeys-Leonetti law, so choosing the manner and moment of one's own death is a matter of personal autonomy rather than a break with medical ethics, the ADMD stated. That view was not a fringe position, as pre-adoption polling consistently found large majorities of French respondents in favour of a right to assisted dying for patients with grave and incurable illness. Many physicians even reported having already received such requests from patients, with nowhere to legally direct them.

Even though the text was adopted, the debate around it shows how France, compared with its European neighbours, remains structurally more cautious on bioethical issues. When, in 2024, abortion was added to the French Constitution, the legislators used the term “freedom” of access to abortion rather than a right to abortion. This small wording choice protected the medical conscience clause, meaning doctors and other practitioners could decline to perform an abortion if they referred the patient to a doctor who would carry out the procedure.

Similar to the abortion law and concerning assisted suicide, this conscience clause was extended to pharmacists by the Constitutional Council, allowing them to refuse to prepare the lethal substance if it was contrary to their beliefs. Behind this reasoning sits a compromise tradition in French lawmaking. While seeking to guarantee individual freedom and protecting medical staff’s right to not participate in ending a life, the law creates a legal void giving more power to institutions and leaving patients to find, case by case, a suitable doctor, pharmacist, or hospital still willing to say yes.

The final text, more a compromise between individual freedom and collective conscience than a decisive consensus, doesn’t resolve, and arguably aggravates, the broader tension outside France’s borders. As bioethical issues remain managed at the national level, there is no EU-wide standardized approach to assisted dying. This situation provokes a form of “medical tourism”, where patients travel to more permissive countries in order to receive end-to-life care. In 2025, 110 french citizens received euthanasia in Belgium, a number on the rise since the past few years.

About the author

Martin Omnès

The Student World Press correspondent for France

Martin Omnès is a third year student at Sciences Po Paris in France. His main interests are in societal, cultural and artistic subjects. He was the head of the policial life section at la Péniche, Sciences Po’s student-led newspaper. For the Student World Press, he is mostly interested in covering judicial, bioethical and cultural issues within the french society and the place of France in the european political system. He views SWP as a chance to cover french political issues and give a national perspective on international issues.

The United States of Trump

Description lorem ipsum

The United States of Trump

Description lorem ipsum

More articles coming soon!

bottom of page