The end of the morning of May 2 in the Social Affairs Committee was marked by a tense exchange around a question often absent from the debate on the end of life: its cost.
Amendment No. 996, tabled by Philippe Juvin (Republican Right), proposed that the Commission for the Control and Evaluation of the Law integrates in its report an assessment taking into account ” costs incurred as well as savings generated for the health system ».
This proposal, deemed taboo by some, was immediately rejected by the members favorable to the legalization of the administered death. Ségolène Amiot (LFI-NFP) described it as ” shocking “, Yannick Monnet (GDR) of” cynical “, And Sandrine Rousseau (Ecologist and Social) denounced a” Red line crossing » : « Putting public money in the debate is not up to ».
But others defended the legitimacy of the subject. Christophe Bentz (RN) underlined: ” It’s just about having information ». Patrick Hetzel (republican right) recalled that ” The last years of life are the most expensive And that ignore this reality prevents a global vision (cf. euthanasia: the economic question that no one raises). Philippe Juvin quoted the example of Canada, where “help to die” would have allowed ” $ 80 million in savings »(Cf. Canada: 1200 Euthanasia in addition, $ 149 million in less health costs).
-The rejection of the amendment was justified by the general rapporteur Olivier Falorni (the Democrats), who judged the injuring proposal: ” Colleagues were shocked to have been suspected of voting this text for economic reasons ».
Nicolas Turquois (the Democrats) expressed with virulence his reprobation: ” It goes beyond the limits of indecency. It is implemented that those who vote this text do it for budgetary questions. It’s indecent. »
However, this amendment revealed a major unthinky of the debate. Medically caused death, even claimed in the name of individual freedom, also has a budgetary dimension. Its evacuation of the official evaluation field questions: can we permanently exclude any reflection on the systemic effects of such a reform?
Without answering it frontally, the debate of May 2 will have had the merit of asking the question.
