InternationalBREAKING
International
VICTORY: UK defeats assisted suicide bill for the second time
Cassy Cooke
·Spotlight Articles
BOMBSHELL: First child euthanized in Netherlands was disabled, not dying
Late last year, a child was euthanized in the Netherlands for the first time, and now an official review has been completed, applauding the child's intentional death as having been "handled well," but also revealing that the child was severely disabled — not dying.
In 2024, the Netherlands expanded its euthanasia law to allow children of any age to be killed.
The first child was killed under the new guidelines in 2025.
Details have now been released about the death, which was applauded as having been "handled well."
Details also revealed that the child, while severely disabled, was not dying.
The Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide Act was passed in 2002, allowing euthanasia for individuals over age 12 if they were considered to be suffering from an illness or disability with no hope of recovering. In 2004, doctors were allowed to end the lives of infants up to age one if the parents and doctors agreed to it and the baby was experiencing suffering or expected to experience future suffering.
Notably, the child did not need to be dying; he or she could be eligible based on a disability as well.
Lawmakers then passed a controversial expansion of the eligibility guidelines in 2024, adding children ages one to 12 able to the list of those eligible to be euthanized if their parents agreed to it.
In June, news broke that the first child had been killed under the new guidelines.
Details about the child's age and medical condition weren't initially disclosed. The case was referred to the public prosecution service; a committee of four doctors would assess the case and decide if the doctors involved in the child's death complied with the rules.
The NL Times reported that the committee decision has been released, with the child's euthanasia applauded as having been handled well. Details about the child's age and condition were also released, though the names remained confidential.
According to the committee report, the child was born premature at 26 weeks gestation while the parents were on vacation, and was admitted into the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). The child then began experiencing complications, including sepsis.
He wasn't able to be sent to a hospital in the Netherlands until he was four months old, at which point he underwent an MRI; the test revealed brain damage, including periventricular leukomalacia (PVL).
According to Boston Children's Hospital, PVL is "injury to the white matter around the fluid-filled ventricles of the brain" which "can cause damage to the nerve pathways that control motor movements, resulting in muscles that are tight, spastic, or resistant to movement, in addition to being weak."
Babies with PVL are at a higher risk of developing cerebral palsy (CP), and this child did develop CP. The baby also developed cerebral visual impairment (CVI), although the extent of the visual impairment wasn't clear.
At eight months, the child was diagnosed with infantile epileptic spasm syndrome (IESS), a rare and severe form of epilepsy, which in this case also led to a sleep disorder, a swallowing disorder, and coughing fits.
The brain damage also led to a development delay, so by the time the child was two years old, his/her estimated developmental age was six weeks. The child could not talk, and the report alleged that the visual impairment made communication difficult. There were also some respiratory issues. The report concluded:
The child was severely multiply (intellectually and motorically) disabled, and the prognosis was that the child would remain dependent on care for life for all activities of daily living.
In other words, the child was severely disabled, but not dying.
The report claimed there was no chance of any recovery or improvement in the child's abilities. The parents and doctors agreed that the child was suffering "unbearably" and that his/her life was "hopeless." The report said:
The doctor stated that the suffering stemmed not only from the epilepsy but from the child's overall picture, which included severe cerebral palsy, a visual impairment, and developmental delay. On top of this, there was infantile epileptic spasm syndrome, which was extremely difficult to treat.
The child's suffering was evident through discomfort present during the frequent epileptic seizures, such as crying, arching of the back, and shortness of breath. The child was very uncomfortable during the epileptic seizures, which occurred multiple times a day.
Pharmacological therapy for the epilepsy led to severe side effects in the child, such as restlessness, inconsolable crying, and loss of sleep.
The child was visibly short of breath, slept little to nothing, and had also developed a swallowing disorder. The doctor considered the risk of further complications at a very young age to be very high, with a substantial increase in the child's suffering to be expected.
The doctor concluded that the hopelessness stemmed from the impossibility of alleviating the current suffering and the fact that the child suffered from conditions with a limited life expectancy, without any prospect of improvement in quality of life.
Based on this, the parents asked the doctor to kill their child, and as per the law, got a second opinion. The other doctors disagreed that euthanasia was valid. As the report stated:
[T]hese doctors noted that at that time there was no continuous unbearable suffering. The epilepsy was accompanied by significant discomfort, but the epileptic seizures were not continuous.
Their conclusion was that reasonable alternative solutions existed, such as palliative options and pharmacological alternatives that could potentially lead to better seizure control.
The original doctor, however, had labeled the child's existence hopeless and full of suffering, even if the epilepsy was under control. The parents refused palliative care, and sought another "second opinion." The third doctor said:
[T]he child's unbearable suffering was clearly evident from the continuously present discomfort—apart from sporadic moments of improvement—and the very frequent epileptic seizures.
This doctor concluded that the suffering was determined by the permanent, severe brain damage with no prospect of any reasonable degree of development and the eventual permanent lack of any possibility of self-reliance.
His conclusion was that there was no possibility of reducing or eliminating the suffering in any reasonable other way than by ending life.
The child was then sedated and killed, and the committee agreed that the euthanasia was proper and did not violate any laws.
This case is a truly disturbing example of the problem with euthanasia. This child was not dying; he or she was disabled. Yet, based on a misguided sense of compassion, multiple individuals concluded that the child's life was not worth living.
Determining that a person is suffering in order to end that person's life is completely subjective, as was seen in the doctors' varied evaluations. There is a danger when the able-bodied can arbitrarily determine worth and quality of life for those they feel are suffering or may suffer in the future.
Live Action News is pro-life news and commentary from a pro-life perspective.
Our work is possible because of our donors. Please consider giving to further our work of changing hearts and minds on issues of life and human dignity.
Contact editor@liveaction.org for questions, corrections, or if you are seeking permission to reprint any Live Action News content.
Guest Articles: To submit a guest article to Live Action News, email editor@liveaction.org with an attached Word document of 800-1000 words. Please also attach any photos relevant to your submission if applicable. If your submission is accepted for publication, you will be notified within three weeks. Guest articles are not compensated (see our Open License Agreement). Thank you for your interest in Live Action News!
Cassy Cooke
·
BREAKINGInternational
Cassy Cooke
·
Guest Column
Anna Hanemann
·
Analysis
Cassy Cooke
·
Guest Column
Right to Life UK
·BREAKINGInternational
Cassy Cooke
·
Fact Checks
Cassy Cooke
·
Analysis
Cassy Cooke
·
Analysis
Cassy Cooke
·BOMBSHELL: First child euthanized in Netherlands was disabled, not dying
Late last year, a child was euthanized in the Netherlands for the first time, and now an official review has been completed, applauding the child's intentional death as having been "handled well," but also revealing that the child was severely disabled — not dying.
In 2024, the Netherlands expanded its euthanasia law to allow children of any age to be killed.
The first child was killed under the new guidelines in 2025.
Details have now been released about the death, which was applauded as having been "handled well."
Details also revealed that the child, while severely disabled, was not dying.
The Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide Act was passed in 2002, allowing euthanasia for individuals over age 12 if they were considered to be suffering from an illness or disability with no hope of recovering. In 2004, doctors were allowed to end the lives of infants up to age one if the parents and doctors agreed to it and the baby was experiencing suffering or expected to experience future suffering.
Notably, the child did not need to be dying; he or she could be eligible based on a disability as well.
Lawmakers then passed a controversial expansion of the eligibility guidelines in 2024, adding children ages one to 12 able to the list of those eligible to be euthanized if their parents agreed to it.
In June, news broke that the first child had been killed under the new guidelines.
Details about the child's age and medical condition weren't initially disclosed. The case was referred to the public prosecution service; a committee of four doctors would assess the case and decide if the doctors involved in the child's death complied with the rules.
The NL Times reported that the committee decision has been released, with the child's euthanasia applauded as having been handled well. Details about the child's age and condition were also released, though the names remained confidential.
According to the committee report, the child was born premature at 26 weeks gestation while the parents were on vacation, and was admitted into the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). The child then began experiencing complications, including sepsis.
He wasn't able to be sent to a hospital in the Netherlands until he was four months old, at which point he underwent an MRI; the test revealed brain damage, including periventricular leukomalacia (PVL).
According to Boston Children's Hospital, PVL is "injury to the white matter around the fluid-filled ventricles of the brain" which "can cause damage to the nerve pathways that control motor movements, resulting in muscles that are tight, spastic, or resistant to movement, in addition to being weak."
Babies with PVL are at a higher risk of developing cerebral palsy (CP), and this child did develop CP. The baby also developed cerebral visual impairment (CVI), although the extent of the visual impairment wasn't clear.
At eight months, the child was diagnosed with infantile epileptic spasm syndrome (IESS), a rare and severe form of epilepsy, which in this case also led to a sleep disorder, a swallowing disorder, and coughing fits.
The brain damage also led to a development delay, so by the time the child was two years old, his/her estimated developmental age was six weeks. The child could not talk, and the report alleged that the visual impairment made communication difficult. There were also some respiratory issues. The report concluded:
The child was severely multiply (intellectually and motorically) disabled, and the prognosis was that the child would remain dependent on care for life for all activities of daily living.
In other words, the child was severely disabled, but not dying.
The report claimed there was no chance of any recovery or improvement in the child's abilities. The parents and doctors agreed that the child was suffering "unbearably" and that his/her life was "hopeless." The report said:
The doctor stated that the suffering stemmed not only from the epilepsy but from the child's overall picture, which included severe cerebral palsy, a visual impairment, and developmental delay. On top of this, there was infantile epileptic spasm syndrome, which was extremely difficult to treat.
The child's suffering was evident through discomfort present during the frequent epileptic seizures, such as crying, arching of the back, and shortness of breath. The child was very uncomfortable during the epileptic seizures, which occurred multiple times a day.
Pharmacological therapy for the epilepsy led to severe side effects in the child, such as restlessness, inconsolable crying, and loss of sleep.
The child was visibly short of breath, slept little to nothing, and had also developed a swallowing disorder. The doctor considered the risk of further complications at a very young age to be very high, with a substantial increase in the child's suffering to be expected.
The doctor concluded that the hopelessness stemmed from the impossibility of alleviating the current suffering and the fact that the child suffered from conditions with a limited life expectancy, without any prospect of improvement in quality of life.
Based on this, the parents asked the doctor to kill their child, and as per the law, got a second opinion. The other doctors disagreed that euthanasia was valid. As the report stated:
[T]hese doctors noted that at that time there was no continuous unbearable suffering. The epilepsy was accompanied by significant discomfort, but the epileptic seizures were not continuous.
Their conclusion was that reasonable alternative solutions existed, such as palliative options and pharmacological alternatives that could potentially lead to better seizure control.
The original doctor, however, had labeled the child's existence hopeless and full of suffering, even if the epilepsy was under control. The parents refused palliative care, and sought another "second opinion." The third doctor said:
[T]he child's unbearable suffering was clearly evident from the continuously present discomfort—apart from sporadic moments of improvement—and the very frequent epileptic seizures.
This doctor concluded that the suffering was determined by the permanent, severe brain damage with no prospect of any reasonable degree of development and the eventual permanent lack of any possibility of self-reliance.
His conclusion was that there was no possibility of reducing or eliminating the suffering in any reasonable other way than by ending life.
The child was then sedated and killed, and the committee agreed that the euthanasia was proper and did not violate any laws.
This case is a truly disturbing example of the problem with euthanasia. This child was not dying; he or she was disabled. Yet, based on a misguided sense of compassion, multiple individuals concluded that the child's life was not worth living.
Determining that a person is suffering in order to end that person's life is completely subjective, as was seen in the doctors' varied evaluations. There is a danger when the able-bodied can arbitrarily determine worth and quality of life for those they feel are suffering or may suffer in the future.
Live Action News is pro-life news and commentary from a pro-life perspective.
Our work is possible because of our donors. Please consider giving to further our work of changing hearts and minds on issues of life and human dignity.
Contact editor@liveaction.org for questions, corrections, or if you are seeking permission to reprint any Live Action News content.
Guest Articles: To submit a guest article to Live Action News, email editor@liveaction.org with an attached Word document of 800-1000 words. Please also attach any photos relevant to your submission if applicable. If your submission is accepted for publication, you will be notified within three weeks. Guest articles are not compensated (see our Open License Agreement). Thank you for your interest in Live Action News!
Cassy Cooke
·BREAKINGInternational
Cassy Cooke
·Guest Column
Anna Hanemann
·Analysis
Cassy Cooke
·Guest Column
Right to Life UK
·BREAKINGInternational
Cassy Cooke
·Fact Checks
Cassy Cooke
·Analysis
Cassy Cooke
·Analysis
Cassy Cooke
·