In May 2019, Philippe B., a veterinarian from the Angers region, helped Pascal G., a relative suffering from Charcot disease, commit suicide. The latter, wanting to kill himself before he became too damaged by this incurable neurodegenerative pathology, had asked her to give him medication to put an end to it.

After initially refusing, the veterinarian wrote false prescriptions for an imaginary dog, which he used to obtain medication from a pharmacy and hand it over to Pascal G. But the suicide attempt failed and the patient therefore requested a product ” more efficient “. The vet then gave him a bottle of pentobarbital. Two days later, Pascal G. was found dead in his house. He had left this handwritten note: “Let me go special this time!” »

Since assisted suicide is not included in the criminal code, the courts have found a way to prosecute the veterinarian for “forgery” and “use of forged documents” – i.e. the regulations. Supported by the family of the deceased, he always took responsibility for his actions. Without presenting himself as a proponent of active euthanasia, but simply as a man faced with a dilemma: let a loved one suffer or help him by breaking the law.

A dismissal would be “taking excesses with you”

Philippe B. was acquitted in the first instance in May 2022 by the court in Angers, which considered that his actions were justified by “the emergency” and that he was therefore not criminally responsible. This legal concept – Article 122-7 of the Criminal Code – which the defense relies on is defined as “the situation of a person who has to commit a crime to avert a danger”as the Angers Court of Appeal summarized in its recent judgment.

At the end of the first trial, the court concluded that the decline and inevitable suffering that Pascal G. would suffer before his death justified a criminal offense by the veterinarian. The public prosecutor’s office appealed, and the appeal court, which tried Philippe B. again in June, did not take the same view and found him guilty but exempted him from the sentence. The public prosecutor had requested a four-month suspended sentence because he expected an acquittal “Carrier of Drifts” : “To say that the act is justified is to admit that tomorrow family or professionals will help a person die outside of any framework. »

The appeal court admits this in its ruling “The suffering to which Pascal G. was already exposed, as well as what was still unavoidable, clearly represented a danger to him.”. However, it reiterates that the second condition for maintaining the state of emergency, namely the fact that“No other means was conceivable to avoid recognizing the danger.”was not fulfilled.

You still have 35% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.