With just weeks to go before the law on assisted dying comes into force, 150 leaders of Christian-inspired healthcare institutions are collectively refusing to comply, opposing the managerial logic of the end of life with a centuries-old tradition of care.
A Collective Cry Against the Obligation to Inflict Death
It was in the columns of La Croix on July 28 that an unprecedented collective of heads of Catholic hospitals, clinics, and care homes made their voices heard. Their op-ed does not directly challenge the law itself, but rather the obligation it imposes on them: to open their doors to acts that their historical mission forbids.
Claiming to be heirs to ” a multi-millennial tradition of supporting the sick ”, the signatories draw an essential distinction between legal submission and moral adherence:
« To be coerced is not to consent, because our consciences are suffering. »
This phrase, which opens the op-ed shared by Valeurs actuelles, sums up the scale of the dilemma: how to remain faithful to a founding charter when common law dictates the exact opposite of what it prescribes?
‘Ethical Suffering’, a Key Concept of the Resistance
The signatory leaders explicitly draw on the work of psychiatrist Christophe Dejours dedicated to “ethical suffering”—that which would be experienced by their healthcare teams, trained to accompany life to its natural end, when faced with the obligation to permit lethal acts. According to the op-ed republished by Valeurs actuelles, this suffering is coupled with a more insidious fear: that vulnerable people might come to see themselves as a burden, and view their own death as a “collective relief” for their loved ones or for society.
This concern is not new to the Christian doctrinal corpus. As early as 1980, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated in its declaration Iura et bona that “the progress of medicine has brought to light […] other aspects of the problem of euthanasia, which call for further clarification on the ethical level,” referring to a veritable “civilizational shift” in the relationship to suffering and death.
This doctrinal grounding is also recalled in a document from the FIHW Ethics Commission, quoting John Paul II’s encyclical Evangelium Vitae:
« God alone is the Master of life from its beginning to its end: no one, under any circumstance, can directly destroy an innocent human being. »
This text, which can be consulted via Saint-Luc, recalls that Christian institutions “find their meaning in the example of Christ” and not “in economic and technical constraints or passing trends”—a phrase that, nearly twenty-five years after it was written, resonates with striking relevance in the face of contemporary managerial logic.
Palliative Care vs. Management of Death: Two Irreconcilable Logics
Far from denying the reality of extreme situations, the signatories of the op-ed point out that they are already responding to them “by mobilizing [their] skills through the expertise of palliative care”. This is where, implicitly, the confrontation between two visions of care plays out:
- a traditional approach, based on managing pain until natural death;
- a technocratic and managerial logic, which establishes assisted dying as a right and a procedural option among others;
- a concern, expressed by the signatories, that the former logic will be progressively marginalized by the latter in the name of harmonizing rights.
The Quebec philosopher Louis-André Richard, quoted by Valeurs actuelles, goes further, arguing that “administering death is the negation of care”—a phrase that crystallizes the philosophical opposition between two radically different conceptions of medicine and its purpose.
An Impact That Goes Beyond the Medical Question Alone
Beyond the strictly hospital-related issue, this collective resistance questions the place that Western societies still leave for institutions founded on transcendence and a historical heritage distinct from purely administrative logics. The signatory institutions, rooted in Catholicism, position themselves as the last relays of a conception of human dignity that cannot be reduced to individual autonomy or healthcare system efficiency.
This dynamic is not unique to France. The report by Parlons fin de vie, published in April 2025, already lists several European legislations that have paved the way for assisted dying—Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Luxembourg, Portugal, Austria, Switzerland—each with its own frameworks and conditions. France, by legislating in its turn, is part of a continental movement where Christian institutional resistance manifests differently depending on national traditions and the balance of power between the State and faith-based intermediary bodies.
Expected Reactions: Government and Pro-Euthanasia Associations Face the Revolt
The op-ed by the 150 leaders comes at a pivotal moment, just before the law takes effect. It poses a concrete question for public authorities: how to reconcile the uniform application of a national law with the institutional freedom of conscience claimed by establishments historically subsidized or contracted by the State?
Two logics will likely clash in the coming weeks:
- associations in favor of assisted dying, which could denounce a risk of unequal access depending on the healthcare facility attended;
- health authorities, bound to guarantee the application of the law throughout the country, including in structures that directly oppose it.
The outcome of this showdown will say a lot about the place France still intends to reserve, within its healthcare system, for logics of conscience distinct from the legal norm alone.
A Last Bastion, or the Start of a Broader Debate?
Whether or not these 150 voices succeed in influencing the application of the law, their symbolic impact already goes beyond the strict legal framework. They remind us that at the very heart of technocratic and managerial modernity, there remain institutions that refuse to reduce human life to an end-of-life equation. It remains to be seen whether this resistance, rooted in a multi-millennial tradition, will be perceived as a final gasp or as the sign of a societal debate that is still far from over.
