ABSTRACT
Though science and medicine have made the idea of death more and more remote, to some it remains terrorizing. To others immortality has become more fascinating since it seems to be reachable – they perceive death as a voluntary choice, denying the ultimate and traditionally sacred frontier. In developed countries, the question of the end of life remains a sensitive topic with virulently opposing viewpoints. The study of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is not only a case in point but it raises a question of rights, specifically in France, which has historically been the country of human rights. The intellectual debate that pits partisans against detractors of a chosen death must consider this statistic: French people are the third largest nationality to commit PAS in Switzerland (Gauthier et al., 2014, p. 3). The objective of the research herein is to examine PAS from the perspectives of three profiles of participants who have a stake in its aftermath: the medical expert, patient and relative. The research question at hand asks whether or not death is a consumption good; the authors posit that PAS stands at the crossroad of vulnerability and social taboo when it comes to the stream of end of life research. End of life has been communicated in the following way:
The issue of end-of-life cannot be reduced to the sole time of the “very end of life”. End of life strikes as soon as the severe disease is announced. It progressively remains present all along the duration of the disease or the aging. It is felt during the very last moments, and it goes on after death within the process of funerals and mourning. The issue if end-oflife has a global dimension and, to be understood, it must be seen as a more or less long process, punctuated with breaks, during which individuals try, more or less easily, to face death.
