French Citizens' Convention on End of Life

Between December 2022 and April 2023, 184 randomly selected French citizens met over nine weekends to consider one of the country’s hardest questions: how the law should handle the end of life. A clear majority backed opening access to assisted dying within a regulated framework — a conclusion that fed into the government’s legislative work.

At a glance


Process type	Citizens’ convention (random selection / sortition)
When	December 2022 – April 2023 (nine weekends)
Where	Paris — at the Economic, Social and Environmental Council (CESE)
Convened by	Organised by the CESE, at the French government’s request
Participants	184 citizens, randomly selected
The question	Whether France’s end-of-life legal framework suited the situations people face, and whether it should change
Duration	Nine weekends over roughly five months
Cost	Not published

What happened

The convention (Convention Citoyenne sur la fin de vie) was organised by and at the CESE, with an independent College of Guarantors and a Governance Committee overseeing the quality of the process. Members heard evidence, deliberated in facilitated sessions, and voted at several points — an approach the guarantors later examined candidly (see below).

Inputs → outputs

In: the end-of-life question, expert and ethical input, and facilitated deliberation.

Out: a Final Report in April 2023. A majority — reported as 76% of participants — favoured opening access to “active assisted dying” (which in France covers both assisted suicide and euthanasia) within a regulated framework. Rather than a single answer, the report set out three types of guidelines and 19 possible models, with the range of opinions structured into groups alongside the arguments and safeguards for each.

Impact

The convention’s conclusions fed into the French government’s legislative work on the end of life, informing a government bill and the parliamentary debate that followed. As of writing, that legislative process is ongoing — the convention shaped the agenda rather than settling the law.

How it went

The convention is widely regarded as a serious, high-quality deliberation on a genuinely hard ethical question, and its detailed report is unusually rich. Its own guarantors also drew candid lessons: a small minority of members sought to undermine the process through sceptical media; the report’s complexity sometimes obscured a clear path to decisions; and the wording and timing of internal votes needed more care. They also asked whether such fundamental ethical questions warrant more expert input — and stressed that a convention of 184 should be a springboard for broader public debate, not the last word.

Hélène Landemore, who sat on the convention’s governance committee, highlights how it handled deep disagreement. With roughly 76% favouring assisted dying and 24% against, the majority gave the minority half of the final report and half the speaking time, and devoted much of the report to palliative care. By her account about 95% of members approved the final package — and the minority’s informal leader, opposed on principle, publicly thanked the majority for being heard. It’s a vivid illustration of how a citizens’ assembly can treat a near-zero-sum conflict as a shared problem rather than a battle to be won.