The President of the National Assembly is putting pressure on the Prime Minister who has procrastinated on a possible return of the law on the end of life to Parliament. Stopped since the dissolution, this text is “awaited by the French”, assures Yaël Braun-Pivet.
A clear observation. The day after Michel Barnier’s general policy speech which called for a resumption of “dialogue” on the issue of end of life, Yaël Braun-Pivet displays his disapproval.
“I was disappointed,” explained the President of the National Assembly to the association of parliamentary journalists this Wednesday afternoon, adding that “it is a text which is awaited by the French and which the Assembly is ready to discuss it.”
A very vague announcement
Discussions on the end of life were interrupted during the examination at the Palais-Bourbon last June due to dissolution. Since then, the Modem deputy Olivier Falorni, who chaired the parliamentary debates on the bill, tabled a proposal in July which largely incorporates the content of the interrupted project, signed by 166 deputies.
Before the Assembly, Michel Barnier promised to “resume dialogue” with Parliament, “caregivers and associations at the start of next year”.
Behind this declaration of good intention lies a certain vagueness: does Michel Barnier want to start work from scratch on this bill which was to be the major societal reform of Emmanuel Macron’s second five-year term? Does it open the door to the return of debates in the National Assembly of a bill already put together? The question is open as several ministers are firmly opposed to any developments on the end of life.
“No procrastination in this matter”
This law was to legalize assisted suicide and, in certain specific cases, euthanasia, by providing important conditions, while refusing to use these terms, preferring to speak of “active assistance in dying”.
“I will not be satisfied with procrastination on the matter,” warned Yaël Braun-Pivet this Wednesday afternoon. “It is not a question of reopening a dialogue at the beginning of 2025, we must resume examination of the text where we left off.”
And to propose the week of December 2 to put the debates on the end of life in the Assembly in order. Yaël Braun-Pivet’s impatience can be explained in particular by the length of the procedure which requires at least two readings in the Assembly and the Senate before a possible final vote.
“Let’s be realistic, if we want to take the time, that is to say 18 months to two years, we have to go now”, underlined Yaël Braun-Pivet while the threat of a new dissolution next summer or fall would put another stop to this text.
Related News :