Euthanasia in the Netherlands: A Child's Case

The Netherlands has recorded its first case of euthanasia performed on a child between the ages of one and twelve since expanding its legislation in 2024. The case, in which neither the child’s age nor illness has been revealed, reopens the debate about the consequences of extending euthanasia to those who cannot give informed consent and about the responsibility of parents, doctors, judges, and legislators regarding the lives of the most vulnerable.

The Netherlands has recorded its first case of euthanasia performed on a child between the ages of one and twelve since the law allowing it for minors with incurable illnesses that cause unbearable suffering with no possibility of improvement came into effect in 2024. The procedure requires parental consent and an assessment by at least one independent physician.

The commission responsible for evaluating the termination of life for newborns and minors received notification of this case last year and has recently concluded its evaluation. This commission reviewed the child’s medical record, heard testimony from the physician in charge, and submitted its findings to the Public Prosecutor’s Office, which will determine whether the doctor acted in accordance with current legislation.

Neither the child’s age nor their illness has been made public.

This is the first case received in the Netherlands requesting euthanasia for children since the expansion of euthanasia legislation in 2024. Previously, euthanasia could be requested for infants under one year old and for children over 12.

It is worth remembering that the Netherlands was the first European country to legalize euthanasia in 2002.

When the Dutch government passed the amendment to the euthanasia law, it was estimated that there would be five children per year who might meet the requirements to request it, and that these would be children with congenital abnormalities or metabolic disorders.

This is not the first country where euthanasia has been applied to a child, as it has been legal in Belgium since February 2014, when the Belgian Parliament approved a bill to allow euthanasia in cases of terminally ill children. And it was in September 2016 that euthanasia was first performed on a minor.

Bioethical assessment

The extension of the application of euthanasia to minors is a consequence of the slippery slope that accompanies the establishment of euthanasia legislation in the countries where it is approved.

Causing a patient’s death instead of accompanying them through their illness by providing the necessary care is an act that is unequivocally reprehensible from a bioethical standpoint. Any attempt to justify it must be rejected, as it violates the most fundamental right of all: the right to life.

Furthermore, the argument put forward by proponents of euthanasia—based on respecting the wishes of patients who request it—is completely undermined in the case of patients who lack the capacity to provide responsible informed consent.

Euthanasia performed on a child, or on a psychiatric patient, or on someone who is deeply depressed, is no more serious than that performed on adults who are capable of making choices.

But cases like this one reveal the truly sinister face of a practice that eliminates the patients who should be cared for and supported. Here, there is no consent, no ability to assess the consequences of the imposed intervention, and no possibility of correcting its effects afterward. The inflicted death extinguishes any possibility of future redress.

The case of child euthanasia also highlights the enormous responsibility assumed by the actors involved in the process: the politicians who legislate, the doctors who prescribe euthanasia, the judges who authorize it, or the parents who request it, not forgetting the clinicians who carry it out.

This dramatic chain of contributions ends up ending the lives of the vulnerable, who, as in the case of children, cannot choose or defend themselves to claim their rights.

The unfinished task is providing support for living, through access to quality palliative care. The euphemistic term “assistance in dying” is nothing more than killing the patient, which will never represent medical care or human progress.