The "Two Freedoms" Presented by France: How Japan Views the Constitutional Judgments on Euthanasia and the Rejection of an SNS Ban for Those Under 15

On August 14, 2026, France delivered significant constitutional judgments on two seemingly unrelated social issues.

One concerns the law on "assisted dying," allowing patients suffering unbearable pain from severe illness to choose death under strict conditions.

The other is a law attempting to ban SNS use by children under 15 in principle.

The French Constitutional Council deemed the main parts of the former constitutional. However, it rejected the blanket ban on SNS use for those under 15, citing excessive infringement on freedom of expression and communication, and insufficient legal protection for privacy due to age verification.

Thus, on the same day, France moved towards institutionalizing the "freedom to decide one's life's end," while ruling that the state cannot broadly strip communication freedom merely to "protect children from danger."

The common question in both issues is, "To what extent can the state intervene in human freedom?"

This is not solely a French issue.

For Japan, facing a super-aged society and ongoing debates on end-of-life care, and where smartphones and SNS have deeply penetrated the lives of elementary and junior high school students, this judgment could be seen as a precursor to societal developments in Japan in a few years.

Assisted Dying Becomes a Right in France

On July 15, 2026, the French National Assembly finally passed a bill recognizing "assisted dying" as a legal right.

The final vote was 291 in favor, 241 against, with 29 abstentions. It was not an overwhelming consensus but the result of intense debate that divided French society.

The law primarily applies to adults who are French citizens or meet certain residency requirements. Several conditions are set, such as having a severe, incurable illness that is progressing and causing unbearable pain that cannot be alleviated by treatment.

If the conditions are met, the patient themselves will primarily use lethal medication. If they are physically unable to administer it, assistance from medical personnel is allowed.

In Japanese, terms like "euthanasia," "dignified death," and "physician-assisted suicide" are often mixed, but in France, the political and legal term used is "aide à mourir" (assisted dying).

The terminology itself reflects the complexity of the issue.

Is it seen as a "system to allow death"?

Or is it viewed as a "system to liberate from unbearable pain and allow one to decide the final stage of their life"?

The perspective on the same law can vary greatly depending on one's stance.

The Constitutional Council Emphasizes "Individual Freedom" and "Dignity"

After the bill's passage, the French Constitutional Council reviewed it for constitutional issues and recognized the main parts of the law on August 14.

The presidential office welcomed this as a reform achieved through long-term national and parliamentary debate. For President Macron, it marked the passage of one of the major social reforms he pursued after his re-election in 2022.

However, it is not a system where one can easily choose death if desired.

It requires medical judgment and procedures, with mechanisms to confirm the patient's capacity, medical condition, and pain status.

Moreover, the constitutional judgment emphasized the "freedom of conscience" for healthcare workers.

A conscience clause allows doctors and others to refuse participation in the procedure based on ethical, religious, or professional beliefs, extending consideration to pharmacists involved in drug preparation and certain private medical facilities.

This is crucial.

Acknowledging the "freedom to choose death" for patients does not end the debate.

Alongside the patient's right to self-determination, the freedom of healthcare workers who cannot participate in acts leading to death must also be protected.

Since freedoms collide, the system requires extremely precise design.

Proponents Speak of "Reassurance in Having Options"

There is significant social support for assisted dying in France. According to an Ifop survey reported in February 2026, support for the system reached 84%. However, there is another debate on how broadly the specific application conditions should be extended.

Proponents emphasize that it is not a law that forces death but one that provides a final option.

For patients with incurable diseases, losing bodily functions, and suffering from pain or breathing difficulties, the mere existence of the option to "decide the end if it becomes unbearable" provides reassurance.

In fact, some patients interviewed in France expressed support for the system but did not necessarily decide to use it themselves.

"Having the option" and "actually choosing it" are not the same.

This distinction will be extremely important when discussing the issue in Japan.

Concerns About "Pressure on the Vulnerable"

Opposition remains strong.

Religious communities, including the Catholic Church, have strongly opposed legally recognizing intentional acts to cause another's death.

The medical field is not monolithic either.

Some French doctors and palliative care workers evaluate the system as the last support to reduce unbearable pain for patients, while others believe that the role of healthcare providers is not to give death but to support by alleviating pain until the end.

The most serious issue is social pressure.

Elderly, disabled, or severely ill individuals might feel that

"they are a burden to their family,"

"it is regrettable to continue using medical or caregiving expenses,"

"the family might be better off without them,"

leading to the risk that the "choice of death," which should be free, is invisibly coerced by the surroundings.

Therefore, the system of assisted dying and the enhancement of palliative care must be considered together.

If society becomes one where "we cannot provide sufficient medical or caregiving to alleviate pain, so we ask you to choose death," the term self-determination quickly becomes hollow.

How Far Is It Recognized in Japan?

The situation in Japan is significantly different from France.

Currently, Japan does not have a system like France's new one, where lethal medication can be legally provided to patients meeting certain conditions as a "right to assisted dying."

Japan's Penal Code also contains provisions on involvement in suicide and consensual homicide, potentially leading to criminal liability for actions actively causing death.

On the other hand, Japan also emphasizes the individual's wishes regarding "what kind of treatment to receive" and "how far to go with life-prolonging treatment."

The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare has provided guidelines on the "decision-making process for medical care and care in the final stages of life," emphasizing sufficient explanation to the individual, their decision-making, and discussions with family and medical/care teams.

The so-called ACP, now referred to as "life conferences," is also an extension of this.

However,

"not starting or stopping life-prolonging treatment"

and

"administering medication with the purpose of causing death"

are not the same legally or ethically.

France's recent reform is significant in that it institutionalized crossing the boundary Japan has cautiously avoided.

On the Same Day, the Ban on SNS for Those Under 15 Was Deemed "Unconstitutional"

Another major decision was the ban on SNS use for those under 15.

The law passed by the French parliament did not allow SNS account use by children under 15 in principle, with age verification required from service providers for platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and Snapchat.

This stemmed from strong concerns about the digital environment surrounding children, including SNS addiction, impact on sleep, anxiety and depression, cyberbullying, and exposure to harmful content.

However, the Constitutional Council did not deny the purpose of protecting children but judged the means as too broad.

Particularly problematic were the designs of

"all under 15,"

"a wide range of SNS,"

and "age verification targeting all users."

The risks vary by platform.

Even at the same age of 14, maturity and family environment differ.

Some parents may want to allow use.

If age verification requires all users, including adults, to prove their age, collecting and verifying personal information could create new privacy issues.

The Constitutional Council judged that a blanket ban is not a necessary and proportionate means to the objective.

"Protecting Children" Is Not a Universal Justification

What is interesting about this judgment is that it did not conclude solely based on the scientific debate of "Does SNS harm children?"

Even if SNS does cause some harm to children,

"Since there is harm, it can be completely banned"

does not follow.

In a democratic society, the benefits gained from regulation must be compared with the freedoms lost.

SNS indeed poses dangers.

However, it also serves as important social infrastructure for young people, providing opportunities for interaction with friends, hobby communities, information on political and social issues, and places outside of school.

For children living in rural areas, those who struggle to fit into school life, or those without peers sharing the same concerns or interests, online communities can hold significant meaning.

Focusing only on the dangers and severing the connection itself can lead to isolation created by "regulation for protection."

The Constitutional Council's judgment can be seen as demanding that balance from the state.

President Macron Has Not Given Up

Of course, this does not mean the end of SNS regulation in France.

After the judgment, President Macron instructed Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu to create a new, legally robust proposal based on the Constitutional Council's judgment and EU legal systems.

The presidential office has clearly expressed its intention to realize the reform by spring 2027.

Therefore,

the discussion may shift to more detailed system designs, such as limiting to high-risk services instead of a blanket ban,

phasing regulations according to age,

incorporating parental consent,

introducing systems that do not pass personal information to operating companies for age verification,

and regulating specific functions like algorithms promoting addiction, infinite scrolling, and late-night notifications.

The recent unconstitutional judgment is not a conclusion that "SNS regulation should not be done."

It is a warning to "craft regulations more precisely."

On SNS, "Protect the Children" and "Blanket Ban is Dangerous" Clash

Following the decision, ironically, the debate on whether "SNS should be banned" quickly spread on SNS platforms like X.

One representative reaction from the regulation proponents is from Gabriel Attal, who also served as Prime Minister under the Macron administration.

While respecting the Constitutional Council's judgment, Attal described SNS as "a deadly poison for children" and expressed his intention to continue efforts towards regulation.

Meanwhile, in the Japanese-speaking sphere of X, as the judgment spread as breaking news, there were posts focusing on the point that "it's not just about freedom of expression."

Manga artist and House of Councillors member Ken Akamatsu also introduced the French unconstitutional judgment, indicating interest as news related to regulatory debates over manga, games, and internet expression.

In a post by manga artist George Morikawa, the issues of excessive restrictions on freedom of expression and the problems of age verification and privacy protection were highlighted.

Another post in the Japanese-speaking sphere pointed out that explaining the judgment with just the phrase "violation of freedom of expression" is insufficient, emphasizing the importance of the relationship between the age verification system involving all users and privacy.

These reactions show that the debate is not necessarily a simple binary choice of "should children be allowed to use SNS freely?"

Rather,

the discussion is progressing towards system design questions like "Is it okay to have a blanket ban for child protection?"

"Is it okay for adults to be required to provide ID for age verification?"

"Is there a way to regulate only dangerous functions?"

It should be noted that these are examples of representative posts found on SNS and do not statistically represent the overall public opinion in France or Japan.

Children's Internet Use is Already a Policy Issue in Japan

This issue is not irrelevant to Japan.

The Children's and Families Agency conducts an annual "Survey on the Actual Conditions of Internet Use by Young People."

The FY2026 survey