“I do not agree with François Bayrou”, reacts Olivier Falorni

The Prime Minister announced that he wanted two separate texts, one relating to palliative care and the other to assistance in dying, the opposite of what the defenders of the initial bill wanted.

Supporters of active assistance in dying were hanging on a decision by the new Prime Minister on the end-of-life bill. He has just spoken. Tuesday January 21, François Bayrou announced that he wanted to split it into two texts, one relating to palliative care and the other to assisted dying, revealed AFP, citing his entourage.

“I do not agree with François Bayrou”, immediately reacted to the “New Obs” Olivier Falorni, MP for Charente-Maritime (Les Démocrates – MoDem et Indépendants group), who had tabled a bill on end of life on September 17. Before that, he was the general rapporteur of the bill on the same subject, the examination of which had been stopped dead in June due to the dissolution.

“Two complementary pillars”

“End-of-life support is based on two complementary pillars: palliative care, which is the primary response, and assistance in dying, which is the last resort. These two aspects must be addressed now and at the same time, not separately and in a long time! “, believes Olivier Falorni.

The elected official can already count on the support of the President of the National Assembly Yaël Braun-Pivet, who also defends a single text and declared last week that she would like the parliamentary debate to resume on this subject from the start FEBRUARY. This was the commitment of Michel Barnier's government, before it was censored.

On the side of those opposed to assisted dying, on the other hand, we welcome the decision of François Bayou.

“Palliative care was developed in reaction to euthanasia practicesdeclared on X Claire Fourcade, president of Sfap (the French Society for Support and Palliative Care). The first relate to care, the second contradict it. The palliative is consensus, euthanasia divides. Why make ourselves hostage to a debate that prevents us from improving care? Two texts = common sense »