Μake us preferred on Google The Dutch doctor who ended the life of a child last year acted with due care, according to the committee that reviews such cases. The case involved a child of almost two years old with serious health conditions.
Since 2024, the Netherlands has had a regulation that allows the ending of life of children between the ages of one and twelve who are suffering unbearably with no prospect of improvement. In June, Health Minister Sophie Hermans wrote in a letter to the House of Representatives that the first report of a death under this regulation was received at the end of 2025.
It is called “active termination of life,” because a child under twelve is not allowed to decide for themselves whether to end their own life. The parents make this decision together with the doctor. Officially, it is not called euthanasia and does not fall under the euthanasia law, because in euthanasia the patient must make the request themselves.
In its report, the committee concludes that the doctor acted correctly. The report also provides more information about the child who died. The child was born after 26 weeks of pregnancy, after which several “very serious complications occurred,” the review committee writes. The child had brain damage and a form of epilepsy.
The child received medication for the epileptic seizures but also suffered severe side effects as a result. The child barely slept, had coughing fits, and could not swallow properly. “The chance of death at a very young age due to complications was considered very high.”
Several Doctors Gave Their Opinion
The doctor discussed various treatment options with the parents, but over time the child’s condition continued to worsen. The parents asked the doctor to end their child’s life and maintained this request after many conversations.
One of the criteria under the new regulation is that independent doctors are asked for their opinion on ending a child’s life in cases of unbearable suffering with no prospect of improvement. In a first second opinion, doctors concluded that this was not the case, because the epileptic seizures were not continuous and other medication might help better.
However, the treating doctor believed that the child was still suffering unbearably and with no prospect of improvement, even without the epilepsy. In a second second opinion, another physician agreed with ending the child’s life. The suffering was not caused by the epilepsy but by the brain damage, from which the child could not recover.
The committee concludes that there was no other reasonable solution to relieve the child’s suffering. “All facets of ‘being human’ in terms of motor skills, behavior, and personality were severely affected, and this would not improve.”
Following the review committee’s assessment, the Public Prosecution Service must determine whether the doctor acted in accordance with the law or should be prosecuted. That decision is expected later this month.
Source: NU.nl
