Life would be so much easier if all decisions were simple, clear cut, and not controversial. But that is not life. While most of us share similar values, the application of those principles is often where we see most disagreements. The Netherlands is one of two countries that allow children between the ages of 1 and 12 to be euthanized. The law previously allowed newborns and anyone over 12 to be euthanized under specific conditions. Children were added to the list in 2024. The law that provides that if two medical professionals agree a person is suffering and terminally ill, euthanasia is an option. All decisions are reviewed post euthanasia, and medical professionals can suffer significant consequences if the panel believes their actions were not justified.
A report was released this week providing the details of the 1st child that was euthanized after the expansion of the age limits. The child's condition: Born prematurely at 26 weeks, the toddler suffered severe brain damage, cerebral palsy, infantile epileptic spasms syndrome, and cerebral visual impairment. The parents tried to raise the child, but the child was unable to interact in any significant way. Doctors stated the developmental age of the child was six weeks. The child was not in physical pain, but doctors agreed that the child's lifespan would be minimal. Although they could not say the child was terminal because they just didn't know how long the child would live. There was no disagreement that the child's quality of life would be extremely poor and a prognosis for improving upon the conditions from which the child suffered was bleak.
The child's pediatrician told the parents that the child was suffering, had minimal prospect for improving, and recommended euthanasia. The opinion of a second physician is required under the law. The next two physicians to examine the child declined to recommend euthanasia, opting instead to change the medication that would control the seizures. They also did not find that the child was suffering unbearably. The third physician was consulted and agreed with the child's pediatrician.
The procedure was carried out and then, as required by law, the case was reviewed by a medical board. If the board finds the criteria was not met, the physicians can be subjected to civil penalties such as suspension of their medical license and up to criminal violations. In this case, the board found that the child met the criteria and the euthanasia was justified.
This is a difficult case. The child did not have any appreciable quality of life and did not have the prospect of improving. Moral principles aside, the law has a requirement that the person to be euthanized must be medically diagnosed as terminally ill or suffering unbearably with no prospects of improvement. While the reporting is unclear, one could reasonably deduce that the child did not have any outward signs of suffering unbearably. The child was not being treated for pain. I think it can be reasonably argued that the child's condition did not meet the threshold of the requirements in the law. Whether you like it or not, if it doesn't meet the criteria then the answer should be no. Isn't that what the rule of law requires?
If you do not like the law, then change it to include a provision for quality of life. But once we begin substituting a person's judgment for the rule of law, which is the voice of the society at large, then almost any action can become "justifiable." We see that in our society today. Once that happens, we head down the slippery slope to tyranny. Whoever has the power can do whatever they like. That's not the country in which we want to live.
