The destructive underpinnings of the social debate on euthanasia, part 3/3: a false social debate

by time news

TRIBUNE/OPINION – In view of the elements that it seemed to us to be able to provide on this question in the previous articles, it appears that the umpteenth “societal debate” proposed to the French on euthanasia is in truth neither a debate, nor a social requirement.

The word “debate”, in fact, is only used to give the moral violence inflicted on society the appearance of respectful consideration of contrary opinions. In reality, the ideology at work is first these opinions as obstacles to be broken down, because they are rooted in “retrograde” conceptions.

It is enough to observe the successive modes of government, in particular since Nicolas Sarkozy, and especially since the election of Emmanuel Macron, up to a tyrannical practice of power, to be easily convinced of the purely rhetorical character of the call for debate.

There are free opinions that have just been mentioned, like those animals that are left to run for a while, hunting, before a gunshot puts a definitive end to the futile hope of survival that this reprieve had. arise in them.

Moreover, this pseudo-debate is only attributed with being “in society” for two reasons.

The first reason is to give the illusion that this debate responds to the new concerns of each citizen, to which the current legal rules would not respond.

However, it should be recalled that the Claeys-Leonetti law of February 2, 2016, which reinforced the right of access to palliative care, also provided for the possibility of drafting “advance directives” (1) for each person relating to the conditions of his end of life, and to appoint a “person of trust” who can, failing this, testify to the patient’s expressed wishes (2).

The law thus allows anyone to oppose an “unreasonable obstinacy”, that is to say a relentless treatment, by recognizing in particular the right to request a “deep and continuous sedation” (3) until on his death if his vital prognosis is engaged in the short term.

The sufficient conditions of these provisions make it possible to observe that the supporters of euthanasia are not so much seeking the relief of suffering at the end of life, which the applicable law already favors, as a right to kill.

In this regard, it is important to emphasize that the claim of this right comes up against the opposition of the majority of the medical profession, which emphasizes that it is above all the culture of palliative care that is largely lacking (4) and that the legalization of euthanasia would lead to “upsetting the definition of care” and causing “a major ethical shift” (5).

The second reason for which it is claimed that this pseudo-debate on euthanasia would be a “social” debate, is to give the impression that the final success sought will be the fruit of a general consent that no longer allows it to be legally challenged. cause.

The process followed for the legalization then the constitutionalization of abortion is the perfect illustration of this strategy. The “societal debate”, resumed year after year, thus consists only in pouring the same poison again and again into the hands of the people and in harassing them in a thousand ways, until they resolve to swallow freely to enter a state from which they will no longer be able to come out.

It is therefore of the utmost importance to understand that these so-called “social projects”, presented as conditions for a better, fairer and more compassionate society, are necessarily linked to the deleterious philosophies which inspire them more or less directly and which ultimately lead only to the death of man.

To consent to these is necessarily to bring the principles of these into one’s mind. It is to take an irreversible anthropological and moral step against the natural order, regardless of the excuses, often sentimental and compassionate, with which one seeks to cover it. There is therefore no other alternative, for whoever intends to remain human, than to reject and resolutely fight these projects which, as always, proceed only from a fraud on freedom and happiness.

Note :

(1) The “advance directive” is a document that any adult person can draw up in the event that they are no longer able to express their wishes, in relation to their end of life, to indicate what they wish in relation to the continuation, limitation, discontinuation or refusal of treatment or a medical procedure (cf. art. L. 1111-11 of the public health code).

(2) See art. L. 1111-12 of the same code.

(3) “Deep and continuous sedation” consists of inducing and maintaining an alteration of consciousness until death, associated with analgesia and the cessation of all life-sustaining treatments (cf. art. L 1110-5-2 of the same code).

(4) On the importance of palliative care, see the recent book by J.-F. Poisson, Palliative care, the real alternative to euthanasia, Ed. Mame, 2023.

(5) Cf. The ParisianFebruary 17, 2023: “ Euthanasia: 13 organisations, representing 800,000 professionals, oppose its legalization ».

You may also like

Leave a Comment