After months of deliberation, the National Assembly convened on Tuesday, May 27, to decide on legislation concerning end-of-life matters. The votes focused on two distinct proposals: one bill, put forward by Annie vidal of the Renaissance group, centered on enhancing support and palliative care services. The second, from Olivier Falorni of the Modem group, proposed the creation of a “right to help to die.” In advance of the initial vote, twelve deputies from Gironde shared their positions on the matter.

Thomas Cazenave (Renaissance), Bordeaux Nord

In Favor. Thomas Cazenave stated,”After long months of listening,exchanges,and debates,I decided to support the two texts relating to the reinforcements of palliative care and the active help to die. A supervised progress seems to me necessary to respond to the most difficult situations where the vital prognosis is engaged and where medicine cannot relieve sometimes unbearable pain.I see these two texts as two complementary components of the same requirement of dignity.”

Nicolas Thierry (environmentalists), Bordeaux Center

In Favor. Nicolas Thierry said, “I voted for universal access to palliative care and for the right to help to die. This debate engages our right as much as our humanity. I did not approach it with stopped certainties. My conviction was built over the course of meetings, testimonies and hours of debate. This journey led me to impose two personal requirements, now satisfied.The first: that this right is strictly supervised, reserved for exceptional situations, decided in consciousness and in a lit manner. The second: that this ultimate freedom cannot exist without a real right to palliative care, accessible everywhere. My vote is a support for the possibility, for everyone, of being accompanied in their last moments with respect and dignity. This is undoubtedly the heaviest decision I had taken sence the start of my mandate. Because it touches the intimate, and reminds us that a company also judges itself to the way it accompanies everyone in its last moments.”

“This debate engages our right as much as our humanity.”

Loïc Prud’homme (LFI), Bègles-Villenave-Talence

In Favor. Loïc Prud’homme stated, “After having voted the law on access to palliative care, it was with great solemn and without hesitation that I voted for the law ” end of life ”. First of all as anyone who has known in his amiable or family circle a situation of great suffering knows that the requests to decide on his end of life are in these cases weighed, thoughtful, wanted. Then as the text resulting from parliamentary debates takes all the prevention to specify, supervise and authorize this new law. that the so-called drifts of this new right are all invalidated by the numerous and precise studies carried out in countries which have already acted this progress. because precisely this new right is a strong request from persons directly concerned by their end of life, and that responding to this advance towards a worthy end of life does not withdraw any rights to anyone. It is the conquest of final freedom to be able to fully dispose of his body and his life.”

Alain David (PS), Bordeaux Rive-Droite

In Favor. alain David said, “I think this law is necessary. She is attentive and concerned about the will of the person by giving a framework for the conditions of the end of life. However, I hope that each department will have sufficiently numerous palliative care services adapted to the needs of patients.”

Pascal Got (PS), Medoc

In Favor. Pascal Got commented, “The Claeys-Léonetti law does not respond satisfactorily to all end-of-life situations. It was necessary to hear a large majority of French people who have been in favor of the opening of a right for several years. The text leads to a balanced bill, a new freedom, that of choosing his death, with a secure legal framework. A right that any democratic country should propose. France had to overcome its delay. I regret that the government has made the self -administration of the lethal product the rule and the administration by a doctor or a nurse, the exception. It was necessary to leave the patient the free choice of the administration of the substance so that everyone could freely approach this gesture. Some patients may turn out. I regret that this PPL is not examined in stride by the Senate. Its examination was only planned in the fall for a return to the Assembly in 2027, the year of presidential election.”

Marie Récalde (PES),Mérignac

In Favor. Marie Récalde stated, “The two laws voted today thus create” a French model “of helping to die. This support first involves the massive development of palliative care, which must be accessible in all our territories and meet the growing needs of the population. sadly, management in palliative care is not always enough to appease the sufferings of certain patients, for whom there are no effective treatments. The text on help to die then opens a new strictly framed right. To protect this new law, the law also establishes an offense of hindrance sanctioning any attempt to bully with patients or health professionals. To vote these texts is therefore to assume our collective obligation: to protect those who can no longer suffer and respect everyone’s freedom of conscience, that of patients, their loved ones and caregivers.”

Sébastien Saint-Paster (PS), Pessac

In Favor. Sébastien Saint-Paster said, “It is as close as possible to the realities experienced by many people and families that we measure the importance of this advance. It simply aims to recognize everyone with the right to choose a serene and suffering end of life, while respecting human dignity and individual freedom. Many countries in europe have already taken this step. The meaning of history commands this advance; Tomorrow, it will impose itself obvious, and history will probably not understand that we have been so expected.”

Sophie Panonacle (Renaissance), Arcachon basin

In Favor. Sophie Panonacle noted, “I was throughout the duration of the discussions attached to relaying the expectations of the Association for Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis called Charcot’s disease. The adopted amendments that I defended make it possible to recognize the particular situation of people affected by this incurable disease which are deprived of speech at the end of life and have specific mode of communication. the silence imposed by the disease is not an absence of will, but an invitation to hear it differently.”

Sophie Mette (Modem) Sud Gironde

For and Abstention. sophie Mette explained,”I vote for the first text on palliative care. I believe that it is absolutely necessary to develop and give the means to palliative care, which all French people want I think. Regarding the vote on the second text on the end of life, I refrain. Indeed, even if the text has evolved positively and supervised, I believe that it must still evolve.For this, there is the passage to the Senate, perhaps a second reading.At that time, my vote will evolve or not.”

Florent Boudié (Renaissance), Libournais

In Favor. Florent Boudié stated, “My favorable vote is an extension of an in -depth and respectful debate: two and a half years of collective reflection, a citizen agreement, more then three weeks of work in committee and then in the hemicycle. My decision is personal, ethical, intimate even. She matured over the exchanges, including and especially with the people I was able to meet in our department and who sometimes defended contradictory opinions between them