Assisted-dying legalised in France, rejected in the UK

Mohammad Alkhateeb

Is mere existence itself the purpose of life? The belief in the sanctity of life is a core religious belief, one which appears to find its way into policy and law.

Yet, when life becomes all but an experience of irreversible suffering, a painful limp towards death, should the law allow for a person to end their life in a safe, controlled and state-sanctioned manner which is guided by medicine, in a process prescribed by law?

The French Parliament took that view in its majority. French Parliamentarian Anne Raynaud wondered ‘can it still be called a life when the suffering is so great that you can no longer do anything?’

In the News

In July 2026, a law was passed in France allowing assisted-dying in some cases, meanwhile the UK Parliament has voted against the introduction of a similar Bill[1] in England and Wales.

In France, the prospective law[2] was successful in a vote in the National Assembly[3],  despite consecutive rejections by the Sénat [4]. The Senate is traditionally a more conservative house than the National Assembly.

The Constitutional Council has the duty to ensure that the law conforms to the French constitution[5]. The Council deemed the law to be compatible with the constitution, with some reservations.

France

The new French law allows ‘French (or French Resident) adults with a serious and incurable life-threatening illness in an advanced or terminal state’ who ‘experience constant physical or psychological suffering linked to that condition’, to choose to end their life in a process of assisted-dying.

The person can request to receive a lethal substance. They must administer  it themselves, unless they are unable to do so, in which case it will be administered by a medical professional. The limitation of application to French citizens or residents is designed to prevent what has become known as ‘suicide tourism’, a phenomenon seen in Switzerland.

The law puts protections in place, requiring that a doctor verifies the eligibility criteria. A panel of medical professionals then reviews the case to ensure it fulfils the conditions. The law has faced fierce opposition. It has been criticised as presenting a danger to the most vulnerable.

Psychiatric conditions or neurodegenerative diseases (such as dementia) alone do not qualify for the measure introduced by this law. It has long been argued and feared, in France and elsewhere, that the legalisation of euthanasia would detract from the importance of palliative care, and may put pressure on older persons to opt for an assisted-death.

There are certain gaps in this law, one of which has been addressed by the Constitutional Council. The Council upheld the law, whilst ruling that the government is required to provide further clarity on medical practitioners’ right to withhold from any involvement on the grounds of conscience. This means that the law does not compel medical practitioners to participate in assisted dying, and allows them to withdraw from such a process, much like a conscientious objector in war. The law falls short of providing details of the circumstances and mechanisms for such withdrawal.

Furthermore, since the law requires that a person is able to express their intention clearly, there will almost certainly be cases where a person is eligible due to the existence of constant physical or psychological suffering, yet the patient may be mentally, physically or verbally impaired, and therefore be unable to express their intention clearly.

UK

The Bill presented to the UK Parliament, attempting to pave the way for the legalisation of assisted dying, was rejected in September 2026. The proposed law was intended to allow people with fewer than 6 months remaining to live, to apply to end their own life. The application would have had to be supported by two doctors and approved by an expert panel.

As in France, critics of the failed UK Bill argued that it offered little protection to vulnerable people and was a distraction from the needed improvements in palliative care. Member of Parliament, Lauren Edwards, said that ‘the law as it stands is simply too cruel and too unjust to be allowed to stand’.

There is a recurring theme of fear around the possibility of coercion or pressure to opt for euthanasia, whether pressure by relatives or other close persons with a role of care, pressure by medical professionals or care institutions or simply self-exerted pressure, based on a belief that one is being a burden to others.

There is no evidence as to the existence or absence of such a phenonomenon, yet if this risk is in fact real, it is clear that it would not be in the spirit of the law. The law aims to give people the option to end their own suffering, not to end the perceived suffering of or inconvenience to others.

Why did the Bill fail in the UK, while the Law passed in France

There are naturally cultural and political differences which may have contributed to the different legal outcomes. On a surface level cultural view, British society is inherently more conservative than French society. Law and legislation must, if they are to be just, reflect as closely as possible the society which the law is governing. There are exceptions to this, in that French law (the civil law system) is more rigid and more difficult to change than the English Common Law system.

Beyond cultural differences, the Bill proposed in the UK had been far less precise, and less considered, than the one presented to the French Parliament. The UK Bill requirement 6 months remaining to live, is far more arbitrary, and more susceptible to error and inaccuracy, than the French model of a serious and incurable illness with a pre-requisite of suffering. A 2023 study found that only 32% of doctors had accurately made a life expectancy prognosis.

Suffering is often easily identifiable, and addresses the reason why death may be a mercy in any given circumstance. A person may have six months remaining to live, but experience little pain or suffering. By contrast, a person may well suffer in pain for a  decade. This means that a person who had been suffering may have been ineligible for euthanasia, simply by reason of the absence of a six months prognosis.

Final Thoughts

Without making a judgement on the morality or righteousness of the law and the concept of assisted dying, it is clear that the French law had been more considered and was designed to respond to  a particular problem, which is prolonged suffering in terminally ill or  severely sick patients. This is known in law as the mischief rule, where legislators introduce law to effectively address a particular problem.

The failed UK law, by contrast, aimed to seek an arbitrary prognosis as the basis for assisted dying, and Parliament was therefore not presented with a real opportunity to use the law to address a specific problem closely. Had the law been successful, it is highly likely that many people who experience acute pain and suffering in the context of terminal illness, would have continued to be deprived of the opportunity to end their life.

 ——————————————————————————————————

[1] A bill is a text which is presented to parliament as a proposed law. The bill is introduced to be read in parliament, discussed, debated and voted on. If parliament votes in favour of the bill, then this text becomes law, once it passes through the House of Commons and the House of Lords, is given Royal Assent (signed by the Monarch) and published in the Official Gazette.

[2] A prospective law, or a text introduced in Parliament to be debated and voted on before it becomes law or is rejected, is known in France as a Projet de Loi (Law Project) when introduced by the government, or Proposition de Loi (Law Proposition) when introduced by an individual member of Parliament.

[3] The National Assembly is Lower House of the French Parliament – The more powerful house of Parliament.

[4] The French Senate is the Upper House of the French Parliament – It is less powerful than the National Assembly.

[5] A Constitution is a legal text drafted as the foundational basis for all laws that govern the country. It governs the relationship between the state and the individual. It is usually a single document, or a series of texts, which outline all the fundamental laws of the land, but in some cases, such as in the UK, the constitution is uncodified and therefore merely an amalgam of conventions, principles, and laws laid out in various statute.