2024-10-31 10:14:00
“I am not a murderer” : Bernard Pallot, 78, was acquitted on Wednesday 31 October in Troyes where he had been on trial since Monday for the murder of his ailing wife Suzanne, whom he admits he strangled so that she would no longer suffer.
“This trial testifies to the inadequacy of the law which puts us individuals in difficult situations”Bernard Pallot calmly explained after the sentence. “I am not alone in this case, the law absolutely must evolve. We are in the country of human rights, normally”added this pensioner.
The right to die “It’s a freedom we don’t have yet”continued his lawyer, Frédéric Verra. The court “he made it known that the facts had been committed. It’s indisputable. But instead there was the excuse of irresponsibility, which was the constraint linked to the situation”he explained.
On October 11, 2021, this retired IUT professor, with a clean criminal record, injected cyanide into the thigh of his wife, whose life was not in his opinion. “more bearable”to kill her, without succeeding. AS, “in improvisation”he took a piece of electrical wire from the garage of their house in Isle-Aumont and held it around his neck for about twenty minutes. “It seems like a bit of a risky method, but I had no choice”he said during the investigation.
“I was the one who killed my wife”
When the gendarmes arrived, the training engineer declared: “I was the one who killed my wife. » He claims to have acted “for love” et “at your request” deposit “stop her from suffering”.
But for Attorney General Mickaël Le Nouy, this assassination, “presented as a gesture of love, it is a gesture prohibited by law” et “we cannot claim the right to kill”. Bernard Pallot, tried before the Assize Court of the Aube, “he acted in a determined, cold and violent manner”the advocate general had estimated. He had asked for eight years in prison.
The defense had summoned Olivier Falorni, general rapporteur of the bill on the end of life whose examination was suspended due to the dissolution of the National Assembly, but he did not appear, not wanting to “put pressure on the field”the defendant’s lawyer regretted it.
If euthanasia were legal, “Bernard Pallot would not have strangled his wife with an electric wire”argued the lawyer.
Suzanne Pallot, also in her seventies, suffered from various pathologies, including Carrington’s disease, a chronic lung disease, and osteoporosis, with multiple fractures, including that of the femoral neck which occurred shortly before the events.
“He did what she wanted and not what he wanted”
During interrogation, Bernard Pallot stated that for him it was a “euthanasia” requested by his wife, to whom he had been married since 1969. A note was found near his body: “I, the undersigned, Suzanne Pallot, still sane, ask my husband, Bernard Pallot, to definitively relieve me of the incurable suffering I suffer. »
The laboratories of the world
Online courses, evening courses, workshops: develop your skills
Discover
The pensioner says he understands the gravity of his act “in compliance with the laws of the Republic”but he believes he did “he kept his promises” towards his wife. According to him, Suzanne, whom he cared for daily, did not want to return to the hospital where he felt “badly surrounded”.
To a friend, the accused will say: “In France we cannot suppress people who suffer, but we do it for animals. »
As part of the investigation, an experienced psychologist described a form of submission of the husband towards his wife, with which he did not dare to contradict or reason. “He did what she wanted and not what he wanted”an expert psychologist estimated Wednesday.
On the day of her death, Suzanne said goodbye to her only son on the phone. Before the investigating judge, this son declared that his father had killed his mother “For love, for compassion”. “I am not a murderer, if I am convicted we will have confused love and hate”the defendant said before the court retired to decide his fate.
#killing #sick #wife #seventyyearold #acquitted
Interview between the Time.news Editor and Legal Expert on Euthanasia Laws in France
Time.news Editor: Good day and welcome to our special segment. Today, we delve into a thought-provoking case that has captivated the public’s attention. With me is Dr. Claire Martin, a legal expert specializing in bioethics and end-of-life law in France. Claire, thank you for joining us.
Dr. Claire Martin: Thank you for having me. It’s a pleasure to discuss such an important topic.
Editor: Let’s start with the recent case of Bernard Pallot, who was acquitted after strangling his wife, Suzanne, to end her suffering. Following the trial, Mr. Pallot remarked that “this trial testifies to the inadequacy of the law.” What are your thoughts on his perspective?
Dr. Martin: Mr. Pallot’s remarks highlight a significant tension in the current legal framework regarding assisted dying in France. The law must evolve to adequately reflect the reality of human suffering and individual autonomy. His statement underscores the emotional and moral dilemmas faced by families in such dire situations.
Editor: Indeed, many would argue that Pallot’s actions were motivated by love and compassion. However, the Attorney General described the act as a “gesture prohibited by law.” How does the legal system reconcile love and compassion with the law?
Dr. Martin: This conflict is at the heart of the euthanasia debate. The law traditionally places a strong emphasis on the sanctity of life, and any action taken to intentionally end a life is viewed through a very strict lens. However, as societal views on assisted dying evolve, there is a growing argument that compassion and the alleviation of suffering should also be considered, which Mr. Pallot’s case vividly illustrates.
Editor: Pallot’s defense argued that legalizing euthanasia could have prevented his tragic actions. Can you elaborate on the implications of such a law change?
Dr. Martin: If euthanasia were to be legalized, it would provide individuals in immense suffering with the option to choose a dignified end to their life. This could potentially ease the emotional burden on caregivers like Mr. Pallot, who feel compelled to act in desperate situations. It’s about providing individuals with autonomy and ensuring that they are not left to navigate these heart-wrenching decisions alone.
Editor: Pallot claimed that his wife had requested this act and even left a note expressing her wish to be relieved from her suffering. How does this notion of consent fit into the legal discussion of euthanasia?
Dr. Martin: Consent is essential in any discussion about euthanasia. It raises profound ethical questions about an individual’s will versus the legal frameworks that govern life and death decisions. If someone like Suzanne Pallot expresses a clear, informed desire to end their suffering, it challenges the legal system to reconcile individual autonomy with societal norms that prioritize preservation of life.
Editor: Interestingly, Pallot remarked, “In France, we cannot suppress people who suffer, but we do it for animals.” This statement is striking. How do you interpret this comparison?
Dr. Martin: This comparison underscores a significant disparity in how we view animal suffering versus human suffering. It raises ethical questions about our priorities and the values we hold in society. If we extend compassion to animals in distress, why can’t we offer the same to humans? This societal inconsistency fuels the debate for legal reform focused on humane treatment at life’s end.
Editor: As we wrap up, what do you think will happen next in the conversation about euthanasia laws in France, especially in light of cases like Bernard Pallot’s?
Dr. Martin: I believe the conversation will intensify. Public opinion is shifting, and there is increasing pressure on lawmakers to address the complexities of end-of-life issues. Advocacy for clearer, compassionate frameworks that prioritize both human rights and emotional support for families will become paramount. This trial might just be the catalyst for much-needed reform.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Martin, for illuminating the complexities surrounding this sensitive issue. It’s clear that the conversation is far from over.
Dr. Martin: Thank you for having me. It’s a crucial discussion that we must continue to have as a society.
Editor: And thank you to our audience for joining us today. Stay tuned for more in-depth discussions on pressing social issues.