A prominent Christian legal advocacy group is alarmed about France's proposed "aid in dying" legislation, warning that the bill introduces a "radical" euthanasia framework with minimal oversight that threatens human dignity and vulnerable populations.
The warning from the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ), a non-governmental organization specializing in human rights and religious freedom, comes during a high-stakes week for the French parliament.
On July 7, the French Senate voted 169–164 to reject the legislation for the third time. However, because the lower house holds ultimate legislative authority under Article 45 of the French Constitution, the text has been sent back to the National Assembly for a final, definitive vote scheduled Wednesday, July 15.
In response to this looming deadline, the ECLJ has compiled a detailed analysis identifying 27 distinct legal and ethical flaws within the text, urgently lobbying members of the National Assembly to uphold the Senate's rejection. The group asserts that the bill leaves final decision-making power entirely to individual doctors with very limited external oversight.
Speaking on the French podcast and media platform Tocsin, Grégor Puppinck, the ECLJ's director, said the planned legislation is extremely radical in the possibility of accessing euthanasia and assisted suicide, giving "immense power" to a single doctor.
"There is no requirement for formalism regarding the expression of this request. So no proof is necessary—no witnesses, no written documents," said Puppinck. "Only the doctor, who afterward can just say, 'Yes, yes, in fact, this person asked to die.'"
Puppinck pointed out the vulnerability of a patient unable to communicate except through facial expressions or vulnerabilities in knowing their own mind, such as with dementia, and how acquiescence in agreeing to their own death, and the interpretation by a single doctor, could be highly subjective.
"The doctor only has to inform the guardian or curator and obtain their opinion. That's all. Obtain their opinion," said Puppinck. "Then, the doctor confirms his decision to the suicidal person, the person who wants to die. So yes, indeed, I agree to let you die. I agree to euthanize you.
"At that point, there is a waiting period of only 48 hours… And, after two days, the doctor can perform the euthanasia."
Puppinck pointed out the naivety and danger of presuming all doctors "are all people with extraordinary morals" and referenced the case of Nicolas Bonnemaison, a French emergency physician famously prosecuted for giving lethal injections to terminally ill patients. Puppinck said "among doctors there are people like the former Dr. Bonnemaison, who believe they are doing good by killing people, by shortening their old age, and who genuinely believe it and have done it."
The ECLJ director also warned that any establishment, including private facilities and not just public hospitals, such as those for disabled children or youths, would be required under the planned law to allow mobile euthanasia teams to enter their premises. Puppinck lamented that the euthanasia law would "impose itself on everyone" and claimed that ideological proponents "who have their hatred of the Church deep-seated in their core… went so far as wanting to impose it on every institution, public as well as private."
"Private funded by the State or not funded by public money—even the institution, the simplest association, entirely independent, entirely funded by private funds, is subject to this obligation to accept euthanasia within its walls," he added, drawing a parallel to historical totalitarian practices that forced state-mandated death procedures on the general populace.
"It's the same logic really, totalitarian in fact, which shows that this [legislation] text is not a text of freedom, that it is a text of coercion to change—to change society. We must fight to defend the freedom of private institutions, including and in particular denominational ones, not just Catholic, so that we have safe places where we can go ourselves when we are old or sick, where we can place our loved ones, and that is essential."
According to the ECLJ's legal breakdown of Articles 5 and 6, the legislation lacks strict formal requirements for expressing a wish to die, allowing requests to be made by written note or any other alternative means of expression appropriate to the person's abilities. Because the bill allows doctors to meet with patients alone, the ECLJ warns that no independent witnesses are required to verify the authenticity of a patient's request.
The legal group also highlighted several rapid procedural timelines embedded in the text. A physician may approve a request and administer the lethal substance on the very first day of meeting a patient, without needing to be their primary care provider.
Additionally, the mandatory reflection period for a patient is only two days after a doctor's approval, meaning an entire euthanasia process could theoretically be completed within 72 hours. Any official review of the procedure occurs only after the patient has died, relying entirely on documentation provided by the deciding physician.
The Christian rights group expressed deep concern for individuals with cognitive impairments, mental health struggles, or advanced age. The ECLJ points out that the bill permits euthanasia for individuals under guardianship or conservatorship, provided their judgment is not deemed "seriously" impaired.
The legislation does not explicitly exclude individuals suffering from severe mental disorders or those exhibiting suicidal tendencies. The ECLJ argues that because the law does not require a patient to be terminally ill, individuals who might otherwise have many years to live could qualify for assisted death, leaving senile, bedridden, or mentally impaired individuals particularly exposed to societal pressure and potential abuse.
Beyond patient protections, the ECLJ's analysis highlights what it describes as severe incursions into freedom of conscience for healthcare workers and private institutions. Under Article 14 of the draft law, healthcare professionals who object to performing euthanasia on moral or religious grounds are legally compelled to designate a willing alternative physician. Pharmacists are similarly denied a conscience clause, leaving them subject to disciplinary sanctions if they refuse to prepare lethal medications.
This mandate extends to faith-based and religious care facilities, which would be legally required to host mobile euthanasia teams and allow the procedure to take place on their premises, even if the entire institutional staff objects, under penalty of prosecution and financial sanctions.
This legislative push comes at a time when access to holistic end-of-life care in France remains highly unequal. The French Society for Support and Palliative Care (SFAP) estimates that up to one million citizens could currently qualify for the procedure, yet roughly 20 departments in France completely lack dedicated palliative care units, and less than half of the national demand for palliative care is met.
The ECLJ also pointed to economic reports suggesting that the legalization of assisted dying could reduce healthcare, elderly care, and retirement expenditures by approximately 1.4 billion euros annually. Critics worry these fiscal dynamics could inadvertently incentivize the state to favor euthanasia over expanding costly long-term care infrastructure.
As the debate reaches its climax ahead of the National Assembly's vote, the ECLJ has confirmed it is mobilizing a legal strategy to contest the bill at the highest levels. If the text is adopted into law, the organization plans to bring formal challenges before France's Constitutional Council and the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that the framework violates fundamental international protections regarding the right to life and freedom of conscience.
