Medical aid in dying (MAiD) remains illegal in France. In May 2025, however, the French National Assembly voted in favor of its legalization, primarily based on the conclusions of Report No. 139 of the National Consultative Ethics Committee and the Citizens’ Convention.This study aims to provide an overview of current knowledge and healthcare professionals’ views on medical aid in dying since the enactment of the Claeys–Leonetti law in 2016.A systematic literature review was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and HAL databases to identify articles published between 2016 and 2025 addressing medical aid in dying, euthanasia, and assisted suicide from the perspective of general practitioners. Study selection was performed independently by two reviewers using a double-blind process.A total of 206 articles were initially identified. After title and abstract screening, eight articles were included for analysis. The analysis was ongoing at the time of abstract submission.This study aims to contribute to a better understanding of French healthcare professionals’ views on medical aid in dying. Future analyses may explore how these views relate to the indications proposed in Opinion No. 139 of the National Consultative Ethics Committee. Additional perspectives include considering the broader context of healthcare system constraints, such as access to palliative care and medical workforce distribution, as well as examining existing literature on requests for euthanasia and their evolution over time.This article provides an overview of current knowledge on healthcare professionals’ opinions regarding medical aid in dying, its legalization, and its implementation in practice. It highlights the diversity of perspectives reported in the literature and lays the groundwork for future research exploring professionals’ experiences, perceptions, and practical challenges related to this practice.

Assisted dying is a debate at the crossroads of legal, societal and medical issues in France. Representations of end-of-life care are shaped by cultural and religious frameworks. XXXXXXX is a culturally diverse, multi-faith setting where different traditions coexist and remain highly present in daily life. This makes it a relevant place to explore how GPs’ representations of assisted dying evolve over time, in an environment where multiple factors likely to shape representations are simultaneously present.To explore how general practitioners’ (GPs) representations of assisted dying evolve over time and to identify factors shaping this evolution.Qualitative grounded theory study. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with qualified private-practice GPs living in the research setting for at least two years (June-October 2024). Sampling aimed at maximum variation (sex, age, origin, religious/spiritual beliefs, time living in the place, palliative care training). Analysis was iterative (open coding and integrative analysis) to build an explanatory model; four interviews were triangulated during open coding. Transcripts and the analysis were returned to participants for possible amendments; a reflexive logbook was kept.Eight GPs (4 women/4 men; mean age 58 years) were interviewed; theoretical saturation was reached after six interviews and confirmed with two additional interviews. Three influences shaped representations: personal beliefs (religious/spiritual/cultural), lived experiences (professional and personal end-of-life encounters), and the legislative framework. A salient paradox emerged: several GPs reported that their views had not changed, yet their narratives revealed shifts over time. These shifts included a movement toward patient-centred relational ethics (“care”), emphasising patient autonomy while recognising the conscience clause. Positions remained diverse, for example some considered assisted dying acceptable only in accredited centres rather than at home.The coexistence of “stability claims” with narrative change suggests that representations are dynamic and sometimes only partially conscious. This paradox can be understood as tension between institutional norms, lived experience and belief systems, helping to interpret ambivalence in clinical positioning.In a plural cultural and religious environment, supporting GPs’ reflective processes through ethics discussion spaces, training and strong palliative care resources may help them accompany patients with humanity and respect, especially if the legislative landscape changes.

Identifying palliative care needs in primary care is a significant challenge for general practitioners (GPs), particularly in anticipating the needs of patients and their families. Despite the availability of support tools in France (French National Authority for Health, 2016), these tools are often poorly known or underused. This study examines whether training in palliative care improves GPs' ability to identify palliative care patients.To evaluate the impact of palliative care training on the criteria used by GPs to initiate palliative care.A quantitative study was conducted with an anonymous questionnaire distributed to GPs between January and March 2024. The questionnaire assessed the clinical criteria and tools used by trained and untrained GPs to identify palliative care situations, specifically comparing the use of PICT-FR, Pallia10, and the "surprise question" (“Would you be surprised if the patient were to die within the next 12 months?”). Descriptive and analytical analyses were performed using Chi-square and Student's t-tests.196 physicians (39% response rate) participated. GPs trained in palliative care were more likely to use specific tools, such as Pallia10 and SPICT-FR (27% vs. 5%, p<0.01), while untrained GPs mainly relied on the "surprise question" (39%). The most commonly used criteria for identifying palliative situations were patient frailty and rapid disease progression (over 80%), with no significant difference between trained and untrained physicians. However, trained GPs more frequently used additional criteria, such as persistent symptoms (p=0.02) and inhalation pneumonia (p=0.01).This study highlights the importance of encouraging dialogue on palliative care in primary care, particularly in the context of end-of-life care. While training improved palliative assessments, familiarity with home-based care criteria remains limited, even among trained physicians. Additionally, much training occurs in hospital settings, which may not address home-based care needs adequately.Training significantly improves the identification and assessment of palliative care situations in primary care. Early discussions with patients, families, and caregivers lead to more appropriate, respectful care aligned with patient wishes.

Assisted Death (AD), adopted at first reading by the French National Assembly on May 27, 2025, is part of the ongoing evolution of end-of-life legislation.To assess General Practitioners’ (GPs) expectations regarding the implementation of AD based on the most recent version of the law.A qualitative study inspired by grounded theory. Data were collected via semi-structured interviews with GPs practicing in the Champagne-Ardenne region.GPs perceive themselves as central actors in the implementation of AD, due to the trust-based relationships they maintain with their patients. They highlight the need to clarify practical conditions of application, as well as the necessity for dedicated structures and multidisciplinary teams. The legal framework is perceived as restrictive, with unclear eligibility criteria and a fifteen-day waiting period considered ill-suited to collegial decision-making processes. This practice is expected to generate a significant emotional burden and, in some cases, internal moral distress, requiring professional support and, at times, recourse to the conscience clause. Palliative care services remain essential stakeholders in patient management.A specific organizational model for AD may emerge in France, combining dedicated structures with a network of trained GPs, like the Swiss and Belgian models. The further development of palliative care appears necessary. AD confronts GPs with moral and ethical questioning, involving inner conflicts and uncertainty, linked to their values, personal experiences, and conceptions of care.GPs are likely to be involved as first-line providers in coordination with end-of-life professionals. AD raises organizational, psychological, and ethical challenges, confronting GPs with their personal and professional values, while maintaining the constant objective of respecting the physician–patient relationship.

Death, increasingly medicalized and often hidden in Western societies, remains a central yet challenging experience in general practice. General practitioners (GPs), who accompany patients and families over time, are frequently confronted with loss, often without specific training in grief or end-of-life care. This proximity, combined with emotional exposure and professional demands, questions the meaning of care, the physician’s humanity, and the resources needed to preserve professional balance.To explore how general practitioners in the Hauts-de-France region experience the death of their patients, and to identify its human, relational, and professional repercussions.A qualitative study inspired by grounded theory was conducted among community-based general practitioners who had experienced the death of a patient. Ten semi-structured interviews were carried out between March 2024 and May 2025, recorded, transcribed anonymously, and analyzed through open coding and data triangulation. Conceptual categories were developed to construct an explanatory model. The study met COREQ quality criteria and complied with all ethical and data protection standards.Being a GP is a vocation involving daily confrontation with illness, suffering, and death. Physicians build deep relationships with patients, leading to emotional reactions—sadness, guilt, sometimes relief—depending on context. These experiences often provoke existential reflections and highlight the physician’s vulnerability. To cope, GPs mobilize resilience strategies such as peer support, life balance, or personal beliefs. Experience and mentorship strengthen emotional intelligence and empathy, allowing physicians to transform these encounters into growth and deeper understanding of care. The patient’s death thus becomes both a challenge and a formative experience shaping professional identity.Facing patients’ deaths profoundly affects GPs, challenging their vocation and the boundary between personal and professional life. Emotional exposure can cause distress but also foster meaning and resilience. The lack of structured training supports the need for educational approaches that develop emotional competence and peer support.A patient’s death is not merely clinical but an existential experience shaping GPs’ identity. Recognizing and supporting this process promotes empathy, resilience, and a more humanistic practice of medicine.