While the President of the Republic must open a vast project on the end of life, the polls are linked and resemble each other, seeming to draw a France acquired by the idea of euthanasia. The latest, an opinion poll conducted by Ifop for MGEN, and published by The Sunday newspaper of July 10, shows that 92% of French people would be in favor of a “medical assistance in dying, in the event of a serious and incurable disease”.
Does this apparent consensus invalidate, in advance, the reflections of the citizens’ convention announced by the Head of State or the next opinion of the National Consultative Ethics Committee? Some specialists are concerned about this, believing that the polls take an excessive place in the debate. Moreover, they believe that these surveys reflect a distorted mirror of opinion, in the absence of more robust sociological studies.
Investigations to be taken with caution
“Concretely, the surveys consist of submitting a question, given by a sponsor, to a panel of French people representative of the entire population in terms of age, sex, socio-professional category, etc. They thus provide a photograph of the opinion on a given question at a time T, says Luc Barthélémy, director general of the Stéthos institute, which specializes in health issues. From there, they can be very useful for testing an idea, supporting reflection, fueling debate, but they never provide a truth of opinion. »
The polls are therefore only valid by comparison over time. In April 2021, Ifop had already questioned the French about their view of the end of life, for the Association for the right to die with dignity (ADMD). The institute then presented an almost equivalent figure: 93% of French people considered that French law should authorize doctors to “to put an end, without suffering, to the life of people suffering from unbearable and incurable diseases if they ask for it”. A figure already stable compared to a previous survey in 2017.
Still, the question asked does not come from the concerns of the respondents themselves, it is suggested to them and formulated by the institutes. “In the case of the ADMD questionnaire, only very knowledgeable people understood, for example, that it overlooked everything that can be done to relieve suffering”, says Claire Fourcade, president of the French Society for Support and Palliative Care (Sfap).
“We are vigilant and subject to a code of ethics, but it is a possible pitfall, recognizes Luc Barthélémy. One can in part induce a response through the use of subjective, emotional terms, which elicit polarized responses. »
Soon an end-of-life barometer
These surveys are to be taken all the more with caution as they cannot be cross-checked with other data, which could make it possible to identify more precisely the expectations of the French people. Thus, Tanguy Chatel, co-founder of the Circle vulnerabilities and society, regrets the absence of any quantitative study on the end of life, based on a methodology used in sociology which makes it possible to start “of people’s experiences and their expectations” : about thirty people chosen for their diversity of opinion, divided into small groups, reflect together on a given theme. “From there, we jointly develop a questionnaire, which really starts from the nuances of this experience”, completes Tanguy Chatel.
Even public research is little solicited on the subject. The latest work by the National Institute for Demographic Studies (INED) in this area dates back to 2012, and it focused mainly on medical practices. In order to remedy this, the Sfap is also in the process of revising its project. “The idea is that each year we can produce a barometer of the end of life, based on the experience of those who live it, whether they are patients, families or doctors, explains Claire Fourcade. It will be comparable from one edition to another, in order to really identify the evolutions of society. »
The future citizens’ convention, announced by the President of the Republic, could also initiate this project, hopes Tanguy Chatel. “Provided that she takes the time to understand the issues, to train the participants, to pose the problem differently, taking into account the nuance and the lived experience of patients, their relatives and doctors, far from solutions all done. »