Critics of the assisted dying bill warn that the legislation risks fundamentally altering the role of the medical profession and the state's responsibility toward the vulnerable. Opponents, including some lawmakers and religious groups, argue that by legalizing the intentional ending of life, the state is crossing a moral threshold that could lead to a 'slippery slope.' They fear that once the right to die is established, the criteria could eventually be expanded, placing undue pressure on the elderly, the disabled, and the sick to choose death over the burden of care.
There is also significant concern regarding the impact on healthcare institutions and the conscience of medical professionals. Despite the inclusion of a conscience clause, critics argue that the pressure to participate in assisted dying could undermine the traditional ethos of medicine, which is centered on healing and preserving life. The rejection of amendments that would have protected private healthcare institutions from being forced to provide these services has heightened fears that the law will override the fundamental rights of organizations and individuals who hold moral objections.
Finally, skeptics question whether the focus on assisted dying distracts from the more pressing need to fix the systemic issues within the French healthcare system. They argue that if the government truly wanted to help the suffering, it would prioritize universal access to high-quality palliative care rather than creating a legal mechanism for death. By rushing this legislation through, critics believe the government is opting for a controversial, quick-fix solution rather than addressing the deeper, more complex challenges of providing adequate care for all citizens at the end of their lives.