We do not care for life by giving death – statement from the bishops of France on end-of-life care
Published on January 15, 2026
As the Senate prepares to examine the bill on end-of-life care, the Permanent Council of the Conference of Bishops of France has issued a statement. In an opinion piece published on January 14, 2026, the bishops call for a profound reflection on the meaning of care, solidarity, and human dignity.
In the coming days, the Senate will examine a bill establishing a "right to assisted dying." This debate engages our society in its most intimate and serious aspect: how it supports its most vulnerable members until the end of their lives.
We, the bishops of France, wish to reiterate our profound respect for those facing the end of life, serious or incurable illness, suffering, and the fear of dependence on others. The Church has a long history of accompanying the sick and disabled, caregivers, healthcare professionals, and chaplains in hospitals and nursing homes, and we hear the anguish of those who dread pain, loneliness, or loss of control. We encounter this anguish directly when loved ones, family members, and members of our dioceses face these challenges and share them with us. These fears are real. They call for appropriate human, fraternal, medical, and social responses.
For over twenty-five years, France has made a unique and invaluable choice: to reject both unreasonable aggressive treatment and induced death, affirming both the right not to suffer and the duty to accompany life to its end. Successive laws, up to the Claeys-Leonetti law and, today, the new law currently being drafted for equal access for all to support and palliative care , outline a coherent and recognized "French path," based on the development of a palliative care culture, consideration of the patient's wishes, advance directives, and the possibility of deep and continuous sedation, not to cause death but to relieve pain.
Palliative care is the only truly effective response to the distressing situations of end-of-life care , and we express our gratitude to the elected officials who, through their vote, support the current bill for equal access to palliative care and support for all. Many healthcare professionals committed to this approach attest that considering the dying or ill person in their physical, but also psychological, relational, and, where applicable, spiritual dimensions, as offered by palliative care, almost always leads to the disappearance of requests to die among terminally ill patients. For even behind a request for death, it is often the desire to live that is expressed. To enable everyone to access palliative care, the Church, which is already present in the hospital system and in healthcare practice, is ready to contribute to the development of a palliative care culture by intensifying its commitment to this issue.
Therefore, a crucial question arises: why a new law? If "people die badly in France," as is sometimes said, it's not because administering a lethal substance to patients is not yet permitted, but because the existing law is insufficiently enforced and access to palliative care remains highly unequal across the country. Even today, nearly a quarter of palliative care needs go unmet. How can we offer death as an option when effective access to care, pain relief (medical advances allow us to overcome almost all refractory pain), human presence, and support is not guaranteed for everyone?
Legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide would profoundly alter the nature of our social contract. Behind reassuring words lies a reality that language tends to conceal. Presenting euthanasia and assisted suicide as acts of care seriously blurs ethical boundaries. Words are twisted from their true meaning to better numb consciences: this obfuscation is never neutral. One does not care for life by giving death.
In particular, we reject the instrumentalization of essential concepts such as dignity, freedom, or fraternity.
We strongly reiterate that the dignity of a human person does not vary according to their state of health, autonomy, or social usefulness; it is inherent to their humanity, to the very end. It is inalienable.
Freedom, however, cannot be conceived in the abstract, as if suffering, fear, loneliness, or social pressure had no impact on discernment. Isn't the request to end one's life a request to end a life that no longer conforms to socially normalized criteria: being healthy, useful, able-bodied, and not representing a significant financial burden? Freedom conceived in this way risks becoming a silent pressure, especially for the most vulnerable. The freedom of every individual must also be considered in its relational dimension: we are interdependent, and the choices of some affect others. To place the burden of choosing death on a sick person, a family, or a medical team trained to heal and not to kill, is to deny the mystery of communion that binds us together. Paul Ricoeur urged us to "think about the responsibility we have for others, who are entrusted to our care and protection, and not only about the responsibility we have for ourselves." [1]
Finally, invoking a "law of fraternity" when it comes to causing death, enabling the administration of a lethal substance, or inciting a caregiver to do so against their conscience is a lie. Fraternity, a core value of our Republic, does not consist of hastening the death of those who suffer or forcing caregivers to cause it, but rather of never abandoning those who are living through these incredibly difficult and painful moments. Fraternity calls for a definitive rejection of the temptation to take a life, and, at the same time, for a resolute commitment to effectively developing palliative care throughout the country, strengthening the training of caregivers, supporting family members, combating isolation, and recognizing that vulnerability is part of the human condition.
Therefore, we solemnly call upon political leaders to consider the anthropological, social, and ethical implications of their debates and votes. We rely on the personal and courageous decision of our national representatives. Life, at every stage and until the very end, is not a cause to be championed like any other, with preconceived notions and the pride of believing ourselves all-powerful, but a mystery to be embraced, with attentive listening to those pierced by suffering and with humility: it takes a great deal of humility to show a modicum of humanity.
Our motivation is neither primarily nor exclusively religious. We want to give voice to the profound concern expressed by many sick people, people with disabilities, their families, and caregivers. With this proposed law, caregivers would once again be on the front lines and forced to perform actions contrary to the ethics of care and the bond of trust that unites them with patients and their families or loved ones. There is a significant risk of undermining the relationship of trust between caregivers, patients, and their close circle.
The vote before the representatives of the Nation therefore involves not only an individual choice, but a societal one. For beyond "assisted dying," it is the question of the meaning of life, suffering, and death that confronts us. Can a human life, however weakened, be decently considered useless to the point of being discarded? Are we perfectly autonomous beings or people who form alliances to care for one another? Is human anxiety at the threshold of death an absurdity to be erased or a condition of our existence, to be alleviated and supported?
We believe that a society grows not when it offers death as a solution, but when it mobilizes to support vulnerability and protect life, to the very end. The path is demanding, certainly, but it is the only one that is truly humane, dignified, and fraternal.
[1] Paul Ricoeur, Accompanying Life Until Death, Esprit, March-April 2006, p. 320
The bishops of the Permanent Councilfrom the Conference of Bishops of France (CEF)
Cardinal Jean-Marc Aveline, Archbishop of Marseille and President of the French Bishops' Conference
Bishop Benoît Bertrand, Bishop of Pontoise and Vice-President of the French Bishops' Conference
Archbishop Vincent Jordy of Tours and Vice-President of the French Bishops' Conference
Bishop Pierre-Antoine Bozo, Coadjutor Bishop of La Rochelle
Archbishop Sylvain Bataille of Bourges
Bishop Nicolas Brouwet of Nîmes
Bishop Alexandre de Bucy of Agen
Bishop Jacques Habert, Bishop of Bayeux and Lisieux
Bishop Alexandre Joly of Troyes
Archbishop Laurent Le Boulc'h of Lille
Bishop Luc Meyer of Rodez
Bishop Pierre-Yves Michel, Bishop of Nancy
Bishop Didier Noblot of Saint-Flour
Bishop Laurent Percerou of Nantes
Archbishop Laurent Ulrich of Paris
Mgr Pascal Wintzer, Archbishop of Sens-Auxerr
Source: https://eglise.catholique.fr/sengager-dans-la-societe/eglise-et-bioethique/science-et-ethique/fin-de-vie-2/568749-tribune-eveques-france-soin-vie-mort-euthanasie/In the coming days, the Senate will examine a bill establishing a "right to assisted dying." This debate engages our society in its most intimate and serious aspect: how it supports its most vulnerable members until the end of their lives.
We, the bishops of France, wish to reiterate our profound respect for those facing the end of life, serious or incurable illness, suffering, and the fear of dependence on others. The Church has a long history of accompanying the sick and disabled, caregivers, healthcare professionals, and chaplains in hospitals and nursing homes, and we hear the anguish of those who dread pain, loneliness, or loss of control. We encounter this anguish directly when loved ones, family members, and members of our dioceses face these challenges and share them with us. These fears are real. They call for appropriate human, fraternal, medical, and social responses.
For over twenty-five years, France has made a unique and invaluable choice: to reject both unreasonable aggressive treatment and induced death, affirming both the right not to suffer and the duty to accompany life to its end. Successive laws, up to the Claeys-Leonetti law and, today, the new law currently being drafted for equal access for all to support and palliative care , outline a coherent and recognized "French path," based on the development of a palliative care culture, consideration of the patient's wishes, advance directives, and the possibility of deep and continuous sedation, not to cause death but to relieve pain.
Palliative care is the only truly effective response to the distressing situations of end-of-life care , and we express our gratitude to the elected officials who, through their vote, support the current bill for equal access to palliative care and support for all. Many healthcare professionals committed to this approach attest that considering the dying or ill person in their physical, but also psychological, relational, and, where applicable, spiritual dimensions, as offered by palliative care, almost always leads to the disappearance of requests to die among terminally ill patients. For even behind a request for death, it is often the desire to live that is expressed. To enable everyone to access palliative care, the Church, which is already present in the hospital system and in healthcare practice, is ready to contribute to the development of a palliative care culture by intensifying its commitment to this issue.
Therefore, a crucial question arises: why a new law? If "people die badly in France," as is sometimes said, it's not because administering a lethal substance to patients is not yet permitted, but because the existing law is insufficiently enforced and access to palliative care remains highly unequal across the country. Even today, nearly a quarter of palliative care needs go unmet. How can we offer death as an option when effective access to care, pain relief (medical advances allow us to overcome almost all refractory pain), human presence, and support is not guaranteed for everyone?
Legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide would profoundly alter the nature of our social contract. Behind reassuring words lies a reality that language tends to conceal. Presenting euthanasia and assisted suicide as acts of care seriously blurs ethical boundaries. Words are twisted from their true meaning to better numb consciences: this obfuscation is never neutral. One does not care for life by giving death.
In particular, we reject the instrumentalization of essential concepts such as dignity, freedom, or fraternity.
We strongly reiterate that the dignity of a human person does not vary according to their state of health, autonomy, or social usefulness; it is inherent to their humanity, to the very end. It is inalienable.
Freedom, however, cannot be conceived in the abstract, as if suffering, fear, loneliness, or social pressure had no impact on discernment. Isn't the request to end one's life a request to end a life that no longer conforms to socially normalized criteria: being healthy, useful, able-bodied, and not representing a significant financial burden? Freedom conceived in this way risks becoming a silent pressure, especially for the most vulnerable. The freedom of every individual must also be considered in its relational dimension: we are interdependent, and the choices of some affect others. To place the burden of choosing death on a sick person, a family, or a medical team trained to heal and not to kill, is to deny the mystery of communion that binds us together. Paul Ricoeur urged us to "think about the responsibility we have for others, who are entrusted to our care and protection, and not only about the responsibility we have for ourselves." [1]
Finally, invoking a "law of fraternity" when it comes to causing death, enabling the administration of a lethal substance, or inciting a caregiver to do so against their conscience is a lie. Fraternity, a core value of our Republic, does not consist of hastening the death of those who suffer or forcing caregivers to cause it, but rather of never abandoning those who are living through these incredibly difficult and painful moments. Fraternity calls for a definitive rejection of the temptation to take a life, and, at the same time, for a resolute commitment to effectively developing palliative care throughout the country, strengthening the training of caregivers, supporting family members, combating isolation, and recognizing that vulnerability is part of the human condition.
Therefore, we solemnly call upon political leaders to consider the anthropological, social, and ethical implications of their debates and votes. We rely on the personal and courageous decision of our national representatives. Life, at every stage and until the very end, is not a cause to be championed like any other, with preconceived notions and the pride of believing ourselves all-powerful, but a mystery to be embraced, with attentive listening to those pierced by suffering and with humility: it takes a great deal of humility to show a modicum of humanity.
Our motivation is neither primarily nor exclusively religious. We want to give voice to the profound concern expressed by many sick people, people with disabilities, their families, and caregivers. With this proposed law, caregivers would once again be on the front lines and forced to perform actions contrary to the ethics of care and the bond of trust that unites them with patients and their families or loved ones. There is a significant risk of undermining the relationship of trust between caregivers, patients, and their close circle.
The vote before the representatives of the Nation therefore involves not only an individual choice, but a societal one. For beyond "assisted dying," it is the question of the meaning of life, suffering, and death that confronts us. Can a human life, however weakened, be decently considered useless to the point of being discarded? Are we perfectly autonomous beings or people who form alliances to care for one another? Is human anxiety at the threshold of death an absurdity to be erased or a condition of our existence, to be alleviated and supported?
We believe that a society grows not when it offers death as a solution, but when it mobilizes to support vulnerability and protect life, to the very end. The path is demanding, certainly, but it is the only one that is truly humane, dignified, and fraternal.
[1] Paul Ricoeur, Accompanying Life Until Death, Esprit, March-April 2006, p. 320
The bishops of the Permanent Councilfrom the Conference of Bishops of France (CEF)
Cardinal Jean-Marc Aveline, Archbishop of Marseille and President of the French Bishops' Conference
Bishop Benoît Bertrand, Bishop of Pontoise and Vice-President of the French Bishops' Conference
Archbishop Vincent Jordy of Tours and Vice-President of the French Bishops' Conference
Bishop Pierre-Antoine Bozo, Coadjutor Bishop of La Rochelle
Archbishop Sylvain Bataille of Bourges
Bishop Nicolas Brouwet of Nîmes
Bishop Alexandre de Bucy of Agen
Bishop Jacques Habert, Bishop of Bayeux and Lisieux
Bishop Alexandre Joly of Troyes
Archbishop Laurent Le Boulc'h of Lille
Bishop Luc Meyer of Rodez
Bishop Pierre-Yves Michel, Bishop of Nancy
Bishop Didier Noblot of Saint-Flour
Bishop Laurent Percerou of Nantes
Archbishop Laurent Ulrich of Paris
Mgr Pascal Wintzer, Archbishop of Sens-Auxerr
Image Facebook Page of the Catholic Bishops of France from their time in Rome during the Synod
Comments