France stands at a historical crossroads concerning life and death.

On July 15, 2026, the French National Assembly is scheduled to hold a final vote on a bill that would allow "assistance in dying" for severely ill patients who meet certain conditions.

If the bill is passed, patients will be able to use lethal drugs under the supervision of healthcare professionals. Self-administration by the patient is the principle, but if the patient is unable to move due to illness or disability, a doctor or nurse may administer it on their behalf.

The French government and supporters of the bill do not describe this as a simple "legalization of euthanasia," but rather as a "right to receive assistance in dying."

The idea is to ensure that people facing incurable diseases and unbearable pain have the opportunity to make decisions for themselves until the end of their lives.

However, writing the choice of death into law does not only increase freedom.

There is also the danger of covering up issues such as the lack of medical and nursing care, guilt towards family, economic disparity, discrimination against people with disabilities, and loneliness with the phrase "the person wanted it."

The intense debate in France is not a distant issue for Japan, which faces significant aging, caregiving burdens, and medical cost problems.

The reality that only patients who can go abroad have a choice

A report by German public broadcasting introduced the experience of Nathalie Bériau, who participated in France's "Citizens' Convention on the End of Life."

When Bériau visited a hospice, she was told by staff that they had arranged for a patient who wished to die due to insufficient pain relief to travel to Belgium.

Acts not permitted within France can be legally obtained in neighboring countries.

Hearing this, Bériau felt it was "hypocritical" to leave the resolution of the issue to foreign medical institutions without establishing a system domestically.

Under the current system, only those who have the physical strength to travel abroad, can afford travel and accommodation costs, and have family or supporters to assist with procedures have options.

Conversely, those who are economically disadvantaged, severely disabled, or lack family or supporters cannot go abroad.

Supporters of the bill argue that this state is precisely what is unequal.

Banning assistance in dying outright does not eliminate patients who wish to die. If the issue is merely pushed abroad or into the secrecy of medical settings, a transparent procedure and monitoring system should be established domestically.

The long debate that began with the Citizens' Convention

This bill was not suddenly created by the government or some politicians alone.

Following a proposal by President Macron, a "Citizens' Convention on the End of Life" was held from 2022 to 2023.

About 180 ordinary citizens participated, selected to avoid bias in age, occupation, residence, and ideology, and received explanations from doctors, patients, legal experts, religious figures, palliative care workers, and experts on overseas systems.

The convention discussed not only whether assistance in dying should be allowed but also the lack of palliative care, medical disparities, confirmation of the person's will, family involvement, the conscience of medical professionals, and the impact on people with disabilities.

Ultimately, the majority of participants supported legislation that would allow some form of assistance in dying under strict conditions.

However, many of those who supported it did not think that only assistance in dying should be institutionalized.

The important conclusion of the Citizens' Convention was that the nationwide enhancement of palliative care and the establishment of a system for assistance in dying must proceed simultaneously.

Who can use the system?

To utilize assistance in dying under the bill, all multiple conditions must be met.

The target is, in principle, those aged 18 and over who have French nationality or are stably residing in France.

Additionally, the person must have a serious and incurable illness affecting life prognosis, in its advanced or terminal stage.

There must be persistent and unbearable physical or mental suffering that cannot be alleviated by treatment or that the person does not wish to receive treatment for.

Furthermore, the person must be able to clearly express their free and informed will.

It is not intended to be used solely for suffering due to mental illness. It is also not a system where family members can apply on behalf of the person after they have lost decision-making capacity due to dementia.

Even if a prior directive created in the past states "I wish for assistance in dying if I become demented," if the person's will cannot be confirmed at the time of implementation, it is not generally applicable.

The doctor who receives the application will confirm the opinions of multiple healthcare professionals, such as specialists and nurses. The determination of eligibility is generally made within 15 days.

Even after approval, the patient does not immediately use the lethal drug. There is a mandatory reflection period of at least two days, and the will is confirmed again.

It can be withdrawn until just before implementation, and there will be no disadvantage if the will is changed.

A conscience clause will be established, allowing doctors and nurses to refuse implementation for reasons of belief or ethics. However, if they do not respond themselves, they are required to connect the patient with another healthcare professional who can respond.

Why is "48 hours" criticized?

One of the most debated points in the bill is that the minimum reflection period after approval is set at two days.

Supporters argue that if a long waiting period is established, patients whose condition rapidly deteriorates may not be able to use the system.

In cases of neurological diseases or progressive cancer, the ability to communicate or self-administer medication may be lost in just a few days. The idea is that a certain degree of flexibility is necessary to proceed with the procedure while the person can still clearly express their will.

On the other hand, opponents criticize that 48 hours is too short for an irreversible decision like death.

A patient may wish to die when pain or breathing difficulties temporarily worsen, just after a conflict with family, when no discharge destination is found, or when caregivers are exhausted.

The question remains whether the possibility of changing the will through pain relief, psychological support, and improvement of living conditions can be sufficiently considered in two days.

However, the two-day period is not the entire period from application to implementation. Before that, there is a review by a doctor, and multiple healthcare professionals are involved.

On social media, it is sometimes simplified as "a law that allows death 48 hours after application," but the actual procedure is not that simple.

Nevertheless, the shortness of the final reflection period is undoubtedly a critical point affecting the safety of the system.

The evaluation of "historical freedom" spreading on social media

Ahead of the vote on the bill, both supporters and opponents are actively expressing themselves on social media.

The "Association for the Right to Die with Dignity," which has long sought the legalization of assistance in dying, positions this bill as a historic step in ensuring patients' freedom and dignity.

The association's message emphasizes that assistance in dying is not an act forced on anyone but a personal and intimate choice belonging solely to the individual.

Supporters' opinions often reflect the following sentiments:

"The state or doctors should not monopolize the decision-making power over one's body and the end of one's life."

"Not recognizing assistance in dying does not eliminate the suffering of patients."

"The current situation where only the wealthy who can go abroad have a choice is unfair."

"The existence of a choice itself, regardless of whether the system is actually used, leads to reassurance."

Many also argue that supporting the bill does not mean actively promoting death.

The idea is to recognize different choices, such as living until the end with palliative care, being approved for lethal drug use but not actually using it, or using it only when pain reaches its limit.

The opposition argument of "providing death instead of care"

A repeated phrase in the opposition's social media messages is "What is needed is care, not death."

French palliative care workers and conservative citizen groups express strong concerns about enshrining assistance in dying as a right without a sufficient domestic palliative care system.

Even with the same illness, differences exist in the treatment and home support received depending on the region, income, and presence of family.

If a patient who cannot receive pain-relieving treatment, find caregivers, or return home wishes to die, can that be called a free self-determination?

Opponents warn that assistance in dying may be treated as a "cheap option" to reduce medical and caregiving costs.

Even if no one is legally forcing them, patients may feel pressure from the gaze of those around them.

"I am exhausting my family."

"I don't want to keep incurring medical expenses."

"I am occupying a hospital bed."

"I don't want to ruin my children's lives by having them care for me."

The question is whether the words "I want to die" that arise from such thoughts can be judged as the person's inherent free will.

The "silent coercion" feared by disability groups

Warnings from disability groups are particularly important when considering this bill.

In France's anti-discrimination movement for people with disabilities, it is pointed out that among those with disabilities who wish to die, there are people who feel "I cannot continue living under current living conditions" rather than "I want to die."

They cannot secure the necessary assistance hours. There are no barrier-free homes. They cannot afford the cost of medical equipment. There is no support for going out. They are isolated from work and the community.

If assistance in dying is offered before sufficient living support to such people, the system may become a means for society to exclude people with disabilities, rather than expanding their freedom.

On the other hand, excluding people with disabilities uniformly from the system can also lead to the denial of self-determination rights.

Depriving people of the choices granted to others solely because they have disabilities can also be discriminatory.

What is needed is not a system where "people with disabilities cannot receive assistance in dying" or "people with disabilities are encouraged to die because they incur support costs."

It is a system that respects the person's will while rigorously confirming whether they are being driven to death due to a lack of living support.

The narrowing gap between support and opposition as the debate progresses

The French National Assembly passed the bill with 305 votes in favor and 199 against in the first vote in May 2025.

Deliberations continued in both houses, and the Senate repeatedly rejected the bill. The bicameral conference committee also did not reach an agreement.

In the vote held in the National Assembly on June 30, 2026, there were 295 votes in favor, 232 against, and 35 abstentions.

The bill still has majority support, but the gap between support and opposition has narrowed compared to the first vote.

As deliberations progressed and the details of the system became clear, more legislators seemed to consider the matter carefully.

Moreover, this issue cannot be explained solely by the usual ruling and opposition party confrontation.

While there is a tendency for more support from the left and center and more opposition from conservatives, opinions are divided even within the same party.

Many legislators make judgments based on their beliefs, family caregiving experiences, experiences as doctors, and religious views, with decisions often left to individual conscience rather than party discipline.

The issue of life and death cannot be neatly divided by political stance, whether right or left.

Reactions on social media are divided into three

Looking at posts by organizations and individuals, reactions on social media are broadly divided into three.

The first is the position that welcomes the bill as an "expansion of self-determination rights."

It is evaluated as a system that returns the final decision-making power to those who have lost physical freedom due to incurable diseases. Continuing the ban only pushes suffering patients out of sight, and a transparent system is considered safer.

The second is the position that criticizes it as a "defeat of medical and welfare."

There is concern that incorporating acts that directly bring about death into medicine will change the trust relationship between patients and healthcare providers. There is fear that society will present the option of death before treatment and living support.

The third is a cautious position on introduction under current conditions, while understanding the philosophy.

They want the option if they become unbearably ill. However, they do not want a society where elderly parents or family members with disabilities choose death for fear of being a burden.

If assistance in dying is to be recognized, palliative care, psychological support, caregiving, housing, and income security should be established first, as a condition for support.

It should be noted that social media posts do not represent the overall public opinion of French society. Opinions with strong emotions are more likely to spread, and the complex conditions of the system tend to be simplified in short words or videos.

The confusion between "dignified death" and "euthanasia" in Japan

When considering the French bill from Japan, it is first necessary to clarify the terms.##