Vincent Lambert case: "From 2015, Vincent was an object" estimates his nephew François - 20 Minutes

  • After eleven years in a vegetative state and six years of legal battle, Vincent Lambert died on July 11, 2019.
  • If his parents always opposed the cessation of care, other family members, such as his wife Rachel or his nephew François were in favor.
  • The latter has just come out For him to be the last (Éditions Robert Laffont), a book in which he defends his uncle's right to die.

On July 11, 2019, François Lambert announced to AFP the death of his uncle. Vincent Lambert had been in a vegetative state for eleven years. The 42-year-old former nurse was in a coma after a serious road accident. In 2013, the medical team in consultation with his wife, Rachel Lambert, decided to stop the treatments. But Vincent Lambert's parents were not informed. When they find out, a six-year legal battle begins.

François Lambert returns to this affair in For him to be the last , a book in which he defends his uncle's right to die.

When did you tell yourself that Vincent was no longer there?

I am one of the last in the family, apart from Vincent's parents, to have assimilated him. I thought he could always wake up. I had a bit of this Epinal image of the person who wakes up from a coma and who is ten times better than before. But the doctors quickly spoke to us. At the end of six months, we had the cut-off dates with her hardened bones and her legs which became a straight line. We knew very well that he could never set foot on the ground again because it would be far too painful. After a year, we realized that it would remain in a vegetative state. In 2013, it was disconnected for the first time. He had been in this state for five years. I think there a lot of people mourned there.

"We keep alive for ourselves"

You say that during this period, he had reflexes. For example, if you spoke to him loudly, he would jump. How did you know it was just pure reflexes?

It's by talking about it, being very careful with yourself. With other members of the family, we helped each other but contrary to the path taken by Vincent's parents. We knew that we were subject, inevitably because we were close, to an interpretation of everything he did. There was even surely a narcissistic side of the type "he answered me". We were therefore quite suspicious of ourselves. I had done a test by bringing my hand very quickly to his face and his face did not move at all. Then I swept his eyes and there his eyes closed and reopened quickly but it was related to humidity. The gesture dried his eyes and he needed to moisten them. This is a reflex and it has absolutely nothing to do with a conscience. Otherwise he would have closed his eyes in both cases.

Are these all the observations that have changed your point of view on the end of life?

It was done automatically. We are talking about the death of a human being. It is normal that it is taboo, even more when it is provoked. And to do it for humanist reasons is apparently contradictory. But from the moment you ask yourself, things become rational. There is a huge cynicism on the part of the doctors which consisted in saying that since he had no conscience, there was no suffering. Which is not medically false since the messages of suffering do not reach his brain. But it would have been enough that he had a little bit of consciousness from time to time for him to be aware of his suffering. One cannot therefore be medically sure that he does not suffer. So when someone is in this state, that he will never come back and his body is suffering ... There is a moment when you have to ask yourself what you do to keep it alive, what is the point and see if it’s not possessiveness. We keep it alive for ourselves because it makes us happy. But it is not necessarily for him that we do it.

"It is a medicine that protects the pro-life"

You called your book to be the last . Which last one are you talking about exactly?

He will not be the last one to ask questions, but I hope it will be the last one for which there will be six scandalous legal battles. Some people consider that because you have made this journey, you are on the side of death while they are on the side of life ... I hope that these people, we can put them aside. For the time being, they are truly protected by law.

Who exactly are you talking about?

We can talk about certain doctors, certain magistrates, certain relatives and certain lobbies. These are people who adopt a posture and who use the same methods as those used for abortion, that is to say blame, put forward the end of civilization etc.

"There will never be a consensus of doctors on such a subject. "

Do you still hold it against these doctors today?

Yes, clearly. It's sad but I even have more sympathy for the pro-lifers than for the doctors who were in favor of stopping treatment but who consider that each doctor does what he wants with his patient. They defend the medical omnipotence which consists in saying “I give life or death to a human being. These doctors, who are letting the situation rot, I have the most anger at them. In 2015, a decision was made. The Council of State and then the European Court of Human Rights had validated it. A new doctor arrived and he did what he wanted, in this case, completely the opposite of what had been decided. There must be sanctions in this case.

For you, it is the Leonetti law that gives too much weight to doctors.

Yes, in terms of end of life, they are overprotected. The Leonetti law established a medicine which claims to euthanize but which in reality does not assume its act. When you stop treatment and the person dies a week later, there is a causal link between the two. In fact, this law does exactly the opposite of what it claims to do. It only puts the responsibility on the others. It is barbaric law. If you have as many definitions of therapeutic persistence as you have of a doctor, it becomes almost anything. There will never be a consensus of doctors on such a subject. There are 290,000 doctors in France. You will never have 290,000 doctors who will apply the law, if that means anything to apply the law ... But the best thing, so that nobody realizes it, is to say to relatives "you don't have a say. You don't understand anything. You are not a doctor. And these are not healthy thoughts for you. "

"Anyway, there will be other cases and it will lead to something. "

Precisely, is it to better understand what was going on that you studied law, passed the bar and that you became a lawyer?

It seemed obvious to me. The business started. I said to myself "I have to study law". But when I am asked "why the law and why not medicine? I am unable to answer. It happened suddenly, but I think it was the right decision. I knew it was going to be legalized to death ... I wanted to understand. Little by little, I noticed several legal problems. The leonettists do not see that it is a problem and the ADMD (Association for the right to die with dignity) either because it does not want justice. I can see that cases similar to the Vincent Lambert case can happen. So if there is something I can do ... Yes of course.

What do you hope for after the release of your book?

I hope that the book will react, in particular an audience of decision-makers. I want them to tell themselves that there are not only two ways to do it. In fact, I would like a more humane law that gives less room to doctors and more room to relatives. The doctor must have a conscience clause and if he does not wish to stop the treatments, another doctor will take his place. I would also like a specific jurisdiction to be set up that relatives and doctors could seize a priori . In fact, what would bother me is that Vincent is the symbol at the end of life but that it does not lead to any debate. Either way, there will be other cases and it will lead to something. The law is made in such a way that it will not hold.

Society

Death of Vincent Lambert: "It is a relief for him", reacts François Lambert, his nephew

Justice

Vincent Lambert dead, after ten years of legal battle

20 seconds of context

The law of 22 April 2005 relating to the rights of patients and the end of life, known as the Leonetti law, provides:

  • “Health professionals use all the means at their disposal to ensure everyone a dignified life until death. If the doctor finds that he can only relieve the suffering of a person, in the advanced or terminal phase of a serious and incurable condition, whatever the cause, by applying treatment which can have the effect secondary to shortening his life, he must inform the patient, […] the confidential counselor, […] the family or, failing that, one of his relatives. "
  • "These acts should not be pursued with unreasonable obstinacy. When they appear unnecessary, disproportionate or having no other effect than the only artificial maintenance of life, they can be suspended or not be undertaken. […] ”

  • Video
  • Leonetti Law
  • End of life
  • Euthanasia
  • Vincent Lambert
  • Society
  • Medicine