Critics of the newly adopted legislation express deep concern over the potential for a 'slippery slope' that could erode the value placed on human life. Opponents, including some medical associations and religious groups, argue that the state's role should be to provide better palliative care and support for the vulnerable, rather than facilitating the end of their lives. They fear that once assisted dying is normalized, the criteria for eligibility could gradually expand, putting pressure on the elderly, the disabled, and the mentally ill to choose death to avoid being a burden on their families or the healthcare system.
There is also significant apprehension regarding the impact on the medical profession. Many doctors argue that their primary duty is to heal and care for patients, and that participating in the termination of a life fundamentally contradicts the Hippocratic oath. Critics warn that even with provisions for conscientious objection, the culture of medicine in France could shift, potentially damaging the trust between patients and their physicians. They worry that the focus on assisted dying might divert critical funding and attention away from the development of better pain management and hospice services.
Finally, skeptics question whether the safeguards included in the bill are truly sufficient to prevent coercion. They argue that in a society where resources are often limited, the option of assisted dying could become a default choice for those who feel they have no other way to access adequate care. For these critics, the law represents a failure of the state to provide the necessary support to make life worth living for those in the most difficult circumstances.