RN would not repeal the euthanasia law if it were to come to power

Paris – 16.07.2026: The Rassemblement National has stated that it would not formally repeal the law on the right to assisted dying, which was recently passed by the National Assembly, if the party were to come to power on its own. Moselle MP and party spokesperson Laurent Jacobelli said this on Thursday. At the same time, he announced that his party would closely monitor the application of the law in practice and remain vigilant against possible abuses.

Jacobelli admitted that he felt morally conflicted about the reform. According to him, the RN would have preferred a referendum on this particularly sensitive social policy issue. In doing so, the party is adjusting the focus of its position: it no longer regards the newly passed legal regulation as something that must be reversed in principle, but maintains its critical assessment of the law’s conditions and safeguards.

The National Assembly passed the bill in its final reading on Wednesday, 15 July, with 291 votes in favour, 241 against and 29 abstentions. This was preceded by a prolonged confrontation between the two chambers of parliament. The Senate had repeatedly rejected the text; after the conciliation procedure failed, the National Assembly therefore had the final decisive say. The government intends to refer several issues to the Constitutional Council for review.

For the first time, the law creates a legal right of access to assisted dying for adults with serious and incurable illnesses. The conditions include, among other things, that the illness has reached an advanced or terminal stage, that the person has a free and fully informed will, and that their suffering cannot be alleviated by treatment or is perceived by the person concerned as unbearable. Depending on physical ability, the law provides for self-administration of medication or administration by medical staff.

The procedure includes several safeguards. The treating physician will verify the conditions and may request additional medical assessments. There are legally prescribed waiting periods between the decision and its implementation; the person concerned may withdraw their request at any time. On the day of implementation, medical staff must also confirm again that this wish remains unchanged and that there is no external pressure.

Jacobelli’s position highlights differences within the French right. While most RN members and other right-wing groups in the National Assembly voted against the text, the debate following the law’s adoption is increasingly focused on implementation. For the RN, opposition to the law is linked to demands for expanded palliative care and stronger institutional oversight to protect particularly vulnerable patients.

Politically, the reform therefore remains controversial even after the parliamentary process has been completed. The RN’s declared monitoring is now aimed less at an immediate amendment than at the question of whether the legal criteria are being interpreted strictly in medical practice and whether patients’ freedom of choice is being effectively protected. In principle, a future parliamentary majority could still amend the law.