A-Infos (en) France, UCL AL #371 - Politics - Debates: Our Dead Are Political (ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

Following the publication in our previous issue of an article in support 
of the bill on "assisted dying," some comrades wanted to revisit the 
anti-ableist critiques of this bill and their connection to libertarian 
communist ideas. ---- A debate has been raging for several months across 
the revolutionary left regarding the bill put forward by the Macron 
government concerning end-of-life care. Having been involved for several 
months in support of the anti-ableist organizations opposing it[1], we 
were surprised, even shocked, by some of the arguments found in an 
article published last month by Alternative libertaire[2].

Suicide as a Social Fact
We felt that this article presented a very depoliticizing view of the 
question of death, and even more so of suicide, reducing these issues to 
"individual" and "intimate" matters. We advocate a radically different 
perspective: our deaths are political, and our suicides are the result 
of collective social mechanisms, products of a world we fight against.

From Durkheim's work[3]to modern sociological studies, all research 
demonstrates that suicide is not a private matter, but the product of 
social determinants: suicide is three times more prevalent among 
salaried employees and manual laborers than among managers. It is also 
significantly more common among LGBTQ+ individuals and people of 
color[4]... The relationship to death is not a neutral subject, 
impervious to social realities: facilitating access to suicide is, above 
all, facilitating the death of the most vulnerable and discriminated 
against.

This analysis is sometimes denounced as almost conspiratorial: 
anti-ableist activists are supposedly wrong to see the end-of-life law 
as a mechanism that pushes some people to their deaths more than others. 
But they are only reporting a material and statistical reality, as when 
we say that raising the retirement age means workers die younger. 
Similarly, when it is pointed out that, given the state of the public 
hospital system-with waiting times of up to eight months for treatment 
at a pain clinic[5]-access to assisted suicide will create a violent 
social sorting, it seems to us that there is nothing fanciful about it.

Suicide prevention is not accessible to people with disabilities. For 
example, the 3114 (national suicide prevention hotline) is not 
accessible to deaf or mute people.

Not Dead Yet
Unequal in life as in death
Yet, among the arguments put forward, we find that of equality: given 
the high costs of assisted suicide or euthanasia abroad, the end-of-life 
law would be an egalitarian step forward. This would be to limit our 
thinking to the current situation: the dilemma of a lack of palliative 
care will, in reality, only affect the working classes, subjected to the 
failings of a public healthcare system on its last legs. For the 
wealthiest, there's no need to worry; private care centers will always 
be available to treat the suffering of those who can afford to pay to 
prolong their lives in comfort, without delay. In truth, inequality will 
not be erased, but simply displaced: in a capitalist world, there is no 
more freedom in death than there is in life. But in life, at least, it 
is possible to continue our struggles. We refuse to call being offered a 
premature death as an escape from this system "emancipation."

Elisa Rojas, *To Die, Press 1: How the Law on End-of-Life Care Inscribes 
Death in a Capitalist Logic*, Éditions du Détour, April 2026, 128 pages, 
EUR12.90.
Can we really claim that the legalization of assisted suicide, affecting 
only "a few thousand people[...]each year," generally elderly, is not a 
problem? The argument that portrays these "old men and women" as 
inevitable deaths instills a false sense of security and assumes that 
their lives matter less, while this population is very often abandoned 
and mistreated, particularly in nursing homes. To think that in a 
capitalist system, there is no contradiction between facilitating access 
to death and "giving up on caring for life" is to remain deaf to the 
primary reason for this law, which is to constantly reduce the cost of 
care, as the section of the law on palliative care is not even included 
in the budget. While it is possible to improve the living conditions of 
all without waiting for the ideal society, this struggle should take 
place within the framework of socialization and collective management of 
the health system and nursing homes, not within that of a liberal and 
individualistic bill.

It is not without reason that anti-ableist groups unanimously criticize 
this law. In their circles, death is not a theoretical concept, but a 
constant reality, their struggle punctuated by the regular deaths of 
comrades, taken by their illnesses, medical violence, and the 
abandonment of any genuine accessibility policy. When anti-ableist 
activists express their fear of being affected by the eligibility 
criteria for "assisted dying" or their concerns about the precarious 
balance with suicide prevention, these are not theoretical speculations, 
but very concrete anxieties about their ability to continue their fight 
in a world that will encourage them to lay down their arms permanently. 
Choosing to ignore these voices is inconceivable to us as libertarians.

The documentary *Better Off Dead?* by Liz Carr denounces the ableist 
nature of euthanasia and assisted suicide laws in an Anglo-Saxon 
context. Available on the CLHEE YouTube channel.

The idea that the opinion of anti-ableist groups is a mere detail in the 
debate, because they represent only a minority of those affected by the 
end-of-life law, is absurd to us. Yes, everyone has a chance of being 
affected by this law one day: but precisely because everyone can one day 
become disabled! And this is precisely the strength of anti-ableist 
perspectives: refusing to think of disability as an individual fact, 
whether caused by illness, accident, or old age. By contrasting it with 
a social vision, as a reality constructed by our societies, they 
highlight a major fact: disability as a social fact radically alters the 
perspective of those who experience it. Thus, while everyone can one day 
be affected by disability, for an able-bodied person, this change in 
social position will inevitably put many things into perspective. 
Listening to the anti-ableist consensus against the end-of-life law as 
an able-bodied person demonstrates humility in the face of a situation 
one does not experience. Claiming that wanting to die when living with a 
disability is an acceptable act of ableist violence is an intolerable 
form of ableist violence.

Emancipation will be collective or it will not exist.
For us, to say that, as libertarians, "the DNA of our 
movement[is]choosing free will" is to defend an individualistic and 
liberal vision of anarchism. As libertarian communists, we believe, on 
the contrary, that the DNA of our movement lies in its collective 
dimension and its roots in class struggles. We believe that freedom is 
not decreed by laws, but is built collectively in our struggles, by 
transforming our material realities. And it is precisely because we are 
aware of the radical and profound material changes that would allow for 
genuine freedom to choose one's death that we oppose the end-of-life 
law. Because in an ultra-liberal context and one of advanced fascism, we 
believe it will cost our social group more than it will benefit a few 
individuals. Because we will not accept the cynical proposal of a 
liberal and austerity-driven government that, refusing to help us live, 
offers us "assisted dying."

UCL Alsace

Submit

[1]On the anti-ableist opposition to the bill, see the open letter from 
the Anti-Ableist Left Front published on May 22, 2025, on the Mediapart 
Club, or the interview "Odile Maurin: 'Will the choice to die truly be 
free?'"[1]Alternative libertaire no. 362, July-August 2025.

[2]"Living one's life, choosing one's death," Alternative libertaire no. 
370, April 2026.

[3]Émile Durkheim, Suicide: A Sociological Study, 1987.

[4]Figures from the two most recent reports of the National Suicide 
Observatory, published by the DREES, on February 25, 2025, and January 
29, 2026.

[5]Several accounts show that this delay can be up to two years, when 
requests are not simply refused. Figures cited from the French National 
Authority for Health, "Healthcare Pathway of a Person Experiencing Pain"

https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/?Debats-Nos-morts-sont-politiques
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe https://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en