CASE FOR DISCUSSION

CIVIL RIGHTS IN FRANCE

Pierre was a French nurse who works in ICU department. Seeing the sufferings of near-death patients, in
multiple times, he privately confessed with his wife Sophie that should he be in a vegetable condition or
a that should anything ever happen to him, and the doctors conclude that no meaningful treatment could
help him recover consciousness, he would wish to have his life ended peacefully through euthanasia.

In 2008, Pierre was involved in a motorcycle accident which impaired his brain. The doctors diagnosed a
traumatic brain injury, which left Pierre’s survival to heavily depend on feeding tubes. He could not move
any of his limbs or talk and could not eat by himself. However, he breathes alone without the need of a
ventilator. He sleeps and wakes up, following a “normal person’s routine” (said his doctor). His face moves
and expresses but the expressions are incomprehensible medically. He reacts to people in some
circumstances. For example, several videos taken by his mother show that he turns his eyes and head
towards the persons who call his name.

In 2012, after four years of treatment, a panel of doctors who had treated him issued a report concluding
that further medical treatment for Pierre would be “fruitless” and recommending an end to his treatment.
The French law allows for the doctors to recommend such process if they medically conclude that a
condition such as Pierre’s is irreversible. The law also authorizes a process would include stopping feeding
the patient, put the patient into continuous deep sedation (CDS), which involves administering strong
doses of sedatives to ease any suffering, until the patient’s death.

The recommendation deeply divides Pierre’s family. Pierre’s wife Sophie, all of his nephews, all of his
grandparents, two out of four of Pierre’s siblings and two out of three of Pierre’s and Sophie’s children
(all are grown-ups at the time), supported the recommendation, saying that they wish to end Pierre’s
sufferings and let Pierre “go with dignity”. On the other side, both of Pierre’s parents (who are devout
Catholics), his two other siblings, and one of his children (who is also a grown-up) strongly oppose the
recommendation, citing that Pierre is still “conscious” and condemns the process of ending his life “too
gruesome”.

Questions for discussion:

1. What rights are involved in this case, from both perspectives?

2. How should the court reconcile between these competing rights?

3. Whose views do you support in this case?