Doctors in the Netherlands euthanized a severely disabled one-year-old child, the first case reported by Dutch authorities under rules introduced in 2024 that allow ending the lives of seriously ill children between the ages of one and 12.
According to an assessment published by the Netherlands’ Review Committee on Late-term Abortions and Termination of Life of Neonates and Children, which reviews such cases, the doctor involved in administering the euthanasia “acted with due care.”
The report stated that the child was euthanized through gradual sedation with “coma-inducing substances.”
Liana Graham, a research assistant for domestic policy at The Heritage Foundation, a Washington-based conservative think tank, told The Christian Post that the case raises broader questions about euthanasia and the groups for whom the practice could eventually be permitted.
“The situation unfolding in the Netherlands is abhorrent, but it isn’t surprising,” Graham said. “As an advocate against assisted suicide, I have long maintained that as soon as the state legitimates the killing of grandma, it is only a matter of time before it authorizes it for other groups deemed ‘unfit’ for life.”
Graham pointed specifically to disabled people, severely ill newborns and people with severe illnesses as groups she believes could be affected as euthanasia expands.
The child’s name and sex have not been disclosed, but the committee said the baby was born prematurely at 26 weeks while the family was abroad.
The child also reportedly had multiple complications, including severe infections that led to sepsis. By the time the child was nearly 2 years old, doctors estimated the child’s developmental age at about 6 weeks.
In addition to having difficulty breathing, the child developed spastic cerebral palsy and is believed to have had cerebral visual impairment. At 8 months, the child was diagnosed with a severe form of epilepsy.
The doctor leading the child’s care concluded that “the child was not continuously suffering unbearably” and suggested palliative care and other options. But the committee said further treatments caused additional side effects.
An independent doctor argued that the child met the requirements of the nation’s rules on termination of life, saying the child’s suffering was clear. The doctors and the child’s parents ultimately decided to end the child’s life because they concluded there would be no improvement.
“The Netherlands proves that the slippery slope of euthanasia is real,” Graham said, adding that she believes the practice can lead to “a future of less freedom and more paternalism.”
She criticized the language used in the committee’s review. The report stated that “every facet of ‘being human’ in terms of motor skills, behavior and personality was severely affected” and that there would be no improvement.
“Those choice words are extremely revealing. The committee didn’t simply conclude, using their professional judgment, that the child had a poor prognosis — they made a value judgment about which qualities properly fit the category of ‘being human,’” Graham said.
“It rings eerily of the eugenicists and materialists of the 20th century who believed that humanity was nothing more than a product of environment and matter,” she continued.
“Delegating authority to an unelected expert class to ‘scientifically determine’ who is compatible with life and who isn’t is a far cry from an expression of liberty, as early advocates of euthanasia claimed.”
Under the Dutch framework, a physician must conclude, based on prevailing medical knowledge, that ending a child’s life is the only reasonable way to end suffering that is unbearable and without prospect of improvement. The 2024 rules apply to children ages 1 to 12 who meet the relevant conditions.
“The case against such a practice is far deeper than a debate within medical ethics,” Graham said. “This concerns what kind of society we want to live in and give to our children to inherit.”
