The Constitutional Council ruled on the Priority issue of constitutionality on the end of life, filed by the National Union of Associations of Families of Cranial Injury and Cerebral Injury (UNAFTC). He believes that consensus between the doctor and the family is not necessary to decide to stop the treatment of a patient when the latter is not in a state to express his will. At the end of the collegial procedure, the doctor can therefore decide to the end of a patient’s lifenot having left an advance directive, without having the consent of the family.
Possible legal action for the family
The Constitutional Council, however, offers guarantees to families by considering that the decision to stop or limit life-sustaining treatments must be “notified to the persons from whom the doctor has inquired about the patient’s wishes, under conditions their allowing an appeal to be exercised in good time “, specifies the Council, taken up by The world. However, legal action is possible for families in the event of opposition. The decision can then be examined “as soon as possible by the competent court in order to obtain the possible suspension of the contested decision”.
The authority therefore validated the constitutional conformity of the decree on the end of life, to the chagrin of the National Union of Associations of Families of Head Trauma and Cerebral Injury (UNAFTC) which regretted that the family is not sufficiently associated the decision to stop treatment.
Read also :
Loss of autonomy, a fear for 57% of French people
Sick, she challenges the presidential candidates in an open letter
