The French government has decided to reopen the debate on end-of-life and assisted suicide. Some associations advocating for the right to die with dignity are hoping for a relaxation of the very conservative rules that are in force on this subject. Far from being anecdotal, these demands raise the question of the paternalistic vision of the state, whose role would be to protect individuals from themselves.

Since the 19th century, medical and scientific innovations have allowed life expectancy to soar, while infant mortality has drastically fallen. As a result, life and good health have become cardinal virtues for our societies, along with individual freedom. But sometimes, these two values (life and liberty) are in contradiction.

Of course, protecting individuals from the violence of others is legitimate and may require the implementation of coercive collective rules. On the other hand, wanting to protect people from themselves in the name of dubious moral principles is seriously questionable, especially since it is rarely the people concerned who initiate such laws. Unfortunately, many societies have decided to leave this kind of choice to the discretion of the lawmaker. This is particularly true of all issues surrounding death, including assisted suicide.

Most states have chosen to prohibit this practice completely, with the exception, not surprisingly, of Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Switzerland, Luxembourg, and a few American states, even though it is highly restricted. In Belgium, euthanasia is only authorized if the patient is over 18 years old and aware of his or her request. It must also be formulated in a totally free, considered, and repeated manner without external pressure.

Finally, the patient must be in a hopeless medical situation and be in a state of constant, incurable physical or psychological suffering. The law also obliges the patient to go through a whole process of care and information. In France, the question regularly comes up. The Leonetti law voted through in 2005 (unanimously) guarantees all terminally ill patients access to palliative care and prohibits therapeutic overkill.

In 2016, the Claeys-Leonetti law legalized "deep and continuous sedation," allowing patients to be endured for a few hours, allowing patients to be put to sleep until they die while stopping treatment, nutrition, and hydration.

Many physicians oppose the legalization of assisted suicide because they are afraid of opening a Pandora's box and encouraging more questionable practices. As in the case of drugs or prostitution, it is more accurate to think that it is precisely prohibition that can lead to the presence of abuses.

On the contrary, well-designed legislation defines the terms of what is permitted and makes it possible, for example, to avoid an unconsented act. In fact, the current situation is profoundly unequal, since only those who have the financial means to travel abroad, such as to Switzerland in what some call "death tourism," can afford the choice of how they want to end their lives.

In her book Terminer en beauté, Jacqueline Jencquel gives an account of her struggle to choose the end of her life. This 77-year-old activist for the right to die with dignity decided to set this year as the end of her life. Is she seriously ill, subject to atrocious suffering? Not at all. She even claims a "voluntary intervention of old age." These words may shock and frighten, but that is because we have thought for too long that our life choices, even the most personal ones, were the only legitimate ones and should be imposed on others. Beyond France, it is all the countries of Europe, torn between their Christian heritage and their liberal tradition, that should question this practice and push back a little more on the hold of the nanny state on the most intimate choices.

This article was written by Benjamin Faucher. Benjamin Faucher is a French student studying for a PhD in epidemiology.