Jean-Éric Schoettl and Jean-Pierre Camby: The decision of the Constitutional Council on aid in dying is out of the ordinary

On August 14, 2026, France’s Constitutional Council delivered its ruling on the law establishing a right to assisted dying, a measure passed definitively by the National Assembly on July 15. The council did not strike down any provisions of the law but issued three “interpretive reservations” aimed at aligning the legislation with constitutional requirements. These reservations were described as constructive, meaning they added clarifications rather than outright rejecting parts of the law. The decision came alongside five other rulings, including one concerning the so-called “RIPOST” law, designed to address disturbances affecting public order, security, and citizens' peace of mind. In that case, the council invalidated several key provisions. However, the ruling on the assisted dying law stood apart due to the complex ethical, medical, philosophical, spiritual, and constitutional issues it raised. Jean-Éric Schoettl, former general secretary of the Constitutional Council, and Jean-Pierre Camby, a doctor of law, criticized the ruling as being outside the usual norms. They noted that while the council emphasized its lack of authority comparable to that of Parliament, it failed to adequately address fundamental legal questions surrounding the new law. The law, which grants individuals the right to request assistance in dying under specific conditions, has been a subject of intense debate in French society. Proponents argue it respects individual autonomy and provides relief to those suffering from terminal illnesses. Opponents raise concerns over potential abuses, the risk of coercion, and the impact on the sanctity of life. In their analysis, Schoettl and Camby pointed out that the council's interpretation left unresolved critical aspects of the law. For instance, the criteria for determining whether a person is experiencing unbearable suffering remain ambiguous. Additionally, the role of healthcare professionals in administering the assistance and the safeguards against misuse were not clearly defined in the council’s ruling. The council’s decision was notable for its brevity compared to previous rulings on similarly contentious laws. Previous decisions often included detailed explanations of the reasoning behind each reservation. This time, however, the council’s statement was more restrained, offering minimal elaboration on why certain interpretive adjustments were necessary. Legal experts have expressed mixed reactions to the ruling. Some welcomed the council’s approach of not striking down the law entirely, viewing it as a pragmatic compromise given the political sensitivity of the issue. Others, however, argued that the lack of clarity could lead to legal challenges in the future, particularly regarding the implementation of the law in practice. The ruling has also sparked discussions among lawmakers and civil society groups. Advocacy organizations supporting the right to die have called for swift implementation of the law, emphasizing the need for clear guidelines to protect vulnerable individuals. Meanwhile, religious and ethical groups have urged caution, warning that the law might undermine traditional values and create unintended consequences. The Constitutional Council’s decision will likely influence how the law is interpreted and applied in courts. Judges may rely on the council’s reservations to guide their rulings on cases involving assisted dying requests. The government, meanwhile, faces the challenge of drafting implementing regulations that balance the rights of individuals with the responsibilities of healthcare providers and the broader societal implications. The ruling marks a significant step in the evolution of end-of-life care policies in France. While the law itself remains intact, the council’s reservations introduce layers of complexity that must be navigated carefully. As the law moves toward implementation, the focus will shift to ensuring that the intended protections are effectively enforced without creating loopholes or ambiguities that could lead to disputes.