Didier Sicard warns of risks to vulnerable people following the passage of the assisted dying reform

Paris – July 16, 2026: Following the final passage of the law on the right to assisted dying, physician Didier Sicard warned of its potential impact, particularly on people in vulnerable situations. The honorary chairman of the National Consultative Ethics Committee said that the new legal framework could put at risk people whose decisions are influenced by illness, dependence on others, or the burden on their families.

Sicard particularly regretted that, in his view, the law does not sufficiently guard against the effects that the assertion of an individual right may have on those around them. This includes not only healthcare professionals but also family members. For elderly people, people with disabilities, or those with significant care needs, the feeling of being a burden to others may undermine freedom of choice. His criticism therefore targets the social conditions in which formally voluntary wishes arise.

The National Assembly approved the bill in a final reading on July 15 after the Senate again rejected key provisions. This gave members of parliament the final decision-making power in the legislative process. The National Assembly had already passed the bill on June 30 by 295 votes to 232. The reform separates France’s system on active euthanasia institutionally from the law expanding palliative care, which was passed at the end of May.

The bill grants access to assisted dying to adults who are French nationals or who reside permanently and legally in France. Requirements include a serious and incurable illness, a prognosis at an advanced or terminal stage, suffering that cannot be relieved, and the ability to form a free and fully informed decision. As a rule, the person concerned takes the lethal substance themselves, but under certain conditions may entrust its administration to a doctor or nurse.

The attending physician examines the request and is expected to involve other professionals, a psychologist where necessary, as well as a trusted person or family members providing care. Consultation among several professionals and a reflection period are provided for. Healthcare professionals may refuse to cooperate for reasons of conscience. These safeguards are intended to reconcile patient self-determination with protection against external influence. However, critics such as Sicard question whether procedural safeguards alone can reliably identify social and family pressure.

The debate touches on a fundamental conflict of objectives in French health policy. Supporters see the reform as a strictly limited response to unbearable suffering at the end of life. Opponents, on the other hand, point out that access to palliative care still varies between regions and that decisions to choose death must not be shaped by a lack of medical care, support, or by loneliness. The new system will therefore change not only medical law but also the responsibilities of families, care providers, and the state at the end of life.

Sicard chaired the National Consultative Ethics Committee from 1999 to 2008 and led an influential report on end-of-life care in 2012. His current position shows that the passage of the law does not end the ethical conflict. What will be decisive is how doctors assess the criteria for free decision-making, how effectively external oversight is designed, and whether the expansion of palliative care is actually implemented alongside the new legal situation.