Assisted dying: Larcher promises to refer the matter to the Constitutional Council

Context

We described last week the Senate's deadlock: third rejection of the text by the Senate on July 7, motion of rejection adopted without debate, refusal of the conscience clause for pharmacists. However, the parliamentary shuttle continues. The National Assembly will have the last word on July 15. Gérard Larcher has just opened a new front, this time constitutional.

The Facts

On July 8, 2026, the President of the Senate announced that he would personally refer the matter to the Constitutional Council if the Assembly definitively adopts the text on July 15. He invokes Article 61 of the Constitution, which authorizes him to refer a bill to the Council before promulgation without requiring the sixty signatures necessary for a parliamentary appeal. His reservations explicitly concern the conscience clause of healthcare facilities. He recalls that the government retains the power to suspend the text until then. The Senate has rejected the law three times.

Doctrinal Analysis

The Catechism reminds us that "direct euthanasia, consisting in putting an end to the life of disabled, sick, or dying persons, is morally unacceptable" (CCC 2277). John Paul II specifies in Evangelium Vitae that "laws that authorize and promote abortion and euthanasia are radically opposed not only to the good of the individual person but also to the common good" (n° 72). The same encyclical teaches that a parliamentarian can licitly "support proposals aimed at limiting the damage of such a law" (n° 73): the referral to the Wise Men fits exactly into this logic. It does not rectify the moral flaw of the text, but it circumscribes its effects on freedoms of conscience, recognized by Dignitatis Humanae as "a fundamental right of the human person" (n° 2).

Stakes for the Church and the Faithful

The fate of the institutional conscience clause will decide the future of denominational institutions. The Little Sisters of the Poor have already announced that they will close their houses rather than admit the act of euthanasia. Without legal recognition of their collective objection, these congregations will have to choose between formal cooperation with evil and disappearance.

Critical Reading and Blind Spots

Larcher has not detailed his constitutional grounds. Three angles remain open: the safeguarding of human dignity, a constitutional value since 1994, the protection of freedom of conscience (Article 10 of the Declaration of 1789), and the objective of intelligibility and clarity of the law. The Council may also content itself with interpretive reservations, without censoring the text: a half-success that would not be enough to protect the institutions.

To Reflect and Act

Pray for the President of the Senate, for the Wise Men, for the caregivers and the dying. Support the Little Sisters of the Poor and the threatened congregations. Write to your deputy before July 15.