the Convention listens to caregivers

After religions, caregivers. At the Convention on the end of life, which is holding its second session at the Economic, Social and Environmental Council (Cese), the seamless sequence of meetings can raise questions about the capacity of the 185 citizens drawn by lot to absorb in a short time so much information, often technical, on such a vast and complex subject.

The round table with the six representatives of religions – Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Jewish, Muslim and Buddhist – organized on Friday December 16 is hardly digested that, already, the participants are invited, this Saturday morning December 17, to a “carousel” meetings with 22 caregivers – doctors and nurses of all specialties – and accompanying persons who came to share their “field experience”.

At the end of the first session, Sunday, December 11, several members of the Convention complained about the lack of time to go into the questions raised by these hearings in depth. Message received by the governance committee responsible for organizing the work, which has tried to rectify the situation by leaving more room for discussion. But it was without counting on the delay in the ignition of this second day which will begin with almost an hour late, forcing the whole convention to run after the program.

Make the reality of the end of life heard by the public

It is 10.15 a.m. when, in the hemicycle of the Palais d’Iéna, groups 1 to 5 can finally address their questions to “Team A” caregivers lined up on the stage: a geriatrician, a pediatric intensive care neurologist, a palliative care doctor, two nurses, a psychologist, a carer, plus the president of the Jalmalv federation (for “Until death, accompany life”), a movement that brings together volunteer companions.

“What are the signs of dying and suffering? »begins Reyra. “Do you encounter cases where you are overwhelmed and where active assistance in dying would seem to you to be justified? »connects, bluntly, Fade. “What difficulties do you encounter on a daily basis? »asks Stephanie. “If you were in our shoes, what would you change to make things better? »asks Christian.

At the break, Chantal, the facilitator appointed by the Cese, tries a first synthesis of the answers: “The panel of caregivers is almost unanimous in saying that the legislative framework makes it possible to deal with the vast majority of end-of-life situations. But they also underline that the law is not sufficiently implemented due to a lack of information, resources, human and financial, and training. You agree ? ». “Yes, but what is a tracheostomy? We should still explain the medical terms”suggests Fatima. “We will be careful about it”promises Chantal.

It is now the turn of team B – two resuscitators, a specialist in rehabilitation, two nurses, one of whom is in a mobile palliative care team, a psychologist and a companion from Jalmalv – to be questioned. “Concretely, what does palliative care consist of? »continues Mathieu. “And how have they evolved since their creation? »adds Isabelle. “What do you think of the legalization of active assistance in dying in relation to your ethics? » Lionel asks.

On leaving, an hour later, Doctor Clément Gakuba, from the Caen University Hospital, also wonders: “The questions are interesting, but above all they illustrate the discrepancy between the way the public sees the end of life, the representations they have of it, and the reality. I hope that our testimonies will have enabled the participants to realize this. »

Designate 5 priority questions

After lunch, two hours of ” debriefing “ in small groups should allow the collective to take stock of the work that remains to be done. Each table of about ten members is invited to list the themes that emerged from the first two sessions, then to designate, by vote, the 5 questions that seem to them to be priorities to be dealt with during the January and February sessions.

An elaborate participatory mechanism which will culminate on Sunday, December 18 during the first solemn vote in plenary. The 185 conventional members will then choose, together, how to move forward. For the moment, table 1 is still wondering how to group its ideas, while the neighboring table 4 applauds itself for having finished with a quarter of an hour in advance.

On the board, Dominique, their facilitator, has drawn the avenues to explore: old age, resources to be mobilized, training, information and vulnerable people. “Don’t panic, we have time to finishreassures Aurélien, the host of table 1. Here, everyone progresses at their own pace. »