Pierre Dharréville, communist deputy, can no longer bear to debate the “brutal” law and withdraws

POLICY – “We are on the slope and, as far as I am concerned, I am stopping the slide. » Pierre Dharréville, GDR deputy, left the debates held in the hemicycle on the end of life bill on Friday June 7. A decision that the elected official, opposed to the legalization of assisted dying, justified to his colleagues, attracting signs of support from opponents and supporters of the text.

After agreeing on a definition of assisted dying, the deputies examined the conditions of access in session. A debate “testing” for Pierre Dharréville, who preferred to bow out. “There is something quite irreducible which opposes me to the vision of humankind that this text translates. For me it is a brutal law, a law without shore and a terrible message of renunciation and abandonment which will not be without consequences on social life, solidarity and care.declared the MP for Bouches-du-Rhône.

Before the text arrived in the hemicycle, Pierre Dharréville had already stated his opposition to the bill. “I struggle to recognize myself in this society, in this Republic, in this humanity. Obviously, dying is not healing. And can dying really fall into the category of human rights? “, he wrote in a column published at the end of May in The life.

Saying “deeply affected by the decisions that were made” and “seized with dizziness”, Pierre Dharréville has therefore chosen to no longer participate in the debates in which he believes he can no longer contribute anything. “We are at impasses at every step, I no longer know how to help “make it less worse”, I am going to regain my strength. (…) I simply want to say to those who often silently doubt that this law, given the seriousness, could not, cannot be adopted with the slightest doubt”he concluded.

“Share the same pain”

The debate on the end of life is as intimate as it is divisive. Examined in the Assembly since May 27, it gave rise to at least one tense exchange, after a dubious comparison from a National Rally deputy. But Pierre Dharréville’s declaration and his participation in the discussions were welcomed by elected officials from various parties, proof that the debates transcend political families on this text.

The socialist deputy Jérôme Guedj, in favor of legislation on the end of life, welcomed “the quality of his interventions, the way in which he fueled our doubts” even if “We didn’t always have areas of agreement. » “We need the expressions of doubts, concerns, questions from everyone and whatever benches they come from, they are precious so that we can produce the best possible law”he declared, greeting his communist colleague.

In the ranks of the majority, Renaissance MP Astrid Panosyan-Bouvet who said “share the same pain: the feeling of helplessness in the face of a groundswell that pushes us with compassion and the best of intentions into something that no one can really control”. The Paris MP is one of the elected representatives of the majority reluctant to assist in dying and announced not being able to vote on it after the changes made by the committee.

Return of the “involved vital prognosis” criterion

With 51 votes for and 24 against, the National Assembly adopted article 6 of the bill which sets the conditions of access to assisted dying. As it currently stands, the text examined at first reading opens this aid to people aged over 18, French or residing in France. They will have to suffer from “serious and incurable condition, which is life-threatening, in advanced or terminal phase”, the latter causing refractory or unbearable physical or psychological suffering. They must also be able to express their wishes in a free and informed manner, with the deputies ruling out the possibility of including the use of assisted dying in advance directives.

“The government welcomes the reintroduction (after its deletion in committee) of the notion of ‘vital prognosis initiated’ by the National Assembly”, greeted the entourage of the Minister of Health, Catherine Vautrin. A mark of appeasement, after the disagreements with the rapporteurs which had agitated the commission.

The deputies, on the other hand, rejected the idea that this vital prognosis is engaged “short or medium term”, as provided for in the initial version of the government text. Many deputies deplored the absence of a definition of ” middle term “. Catherine Vautrin indicated that she had contacted the High Health Authority to define the notion of ” middle term “. A first “framework note” will be established in June 2024, but the final version will have to wait until 2025. The solemn vote on the bill is scheduled for June 18 in the National Assembly.

Also see on The HuffPost: