The context of this study comes from the ambiguities at the time of hospitalizations and at the time of choices for the end of life, choice made by whom and why.

The methodology used is based on what has been done and what can be done. In many areas of the social sciences related to the medical sciences, work in ethics revolves around the synthesis and development of applications to examine, consider, and evaluate the phenomenology's that elicit consent. Consent is not limited to a YES and a NO.

There are two kind of results: (1) the need for preliminary discussions in order to conceive the peripheral limits of this right and duty; (2) the review of the complete texts by looking closely at the vocabulary used. Discussions are difficult for the sole reason of wanting to keep these partial logics of the trades put forward with their historicity's. The consent is bilateral and must prefigure the presence of two parties, each often composed of several identities and on a fact: “Knowing the cause of things” and “Knowing the supposed results of the action”. Consent is not the conclusion of a decision or a personal will.

The clearest will be to arrive at a consensus on the elements of power about the end of life, and admit that medical, jurisdiction and republican laws are not the same subject. To this are grafted the ethical elements of a life in the current of what is going to be lived as much by the persons as by the teams of caregivers.