Child under 12 euthanized in the Netherlands
Dutch Health Minister reported a child under 12 was euthanized in late 2025. The Netherlands becomes the second country to legally euthanize minors under 12, after Belgium. The report, from the committee reviewing late-term abortions and medically assisted deaths, was presented to parliament on June 22. Details about the child’s identity or medical condition were not disclosed in the report. Euthanasia has been legal in the Netherlands since 2002 under the Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide Act.
3 months ago
A Dutch health‑ministerial report revealed that, for the first time since the 2024 expansion of its euthanasia law, a child under the age of 12 was euthanized in the Netherlands at the end of 2025. The case was disclosed in a letter to parliament by Health Minister Sophie Hermans and is being examined by an independent medical‑legal committee before prosecutors decide on any further action. 1
The Netherlands legalized euthanasia for adults in 2002 and later allowed neonatal euthanasia in 2007. In 2024 the law was amended to permit euthanasia for children aged 1 to 12 when the child is terminally ill, suffers “unbearably” with no prospect of improvement, and no reasonable treatment or palliative alternative exists. Parental consent is required, and physicians must involve the child to the extent they are capable of understanding. 1 2
The annual 2025 report on late‑term abortions and medically assisted deaths recorded one life‑ending procedure involving a child between 1 and 12 years old. No personal details about the child’s age, illness, or circumstances were released. The case is the first known instance under the new age‑group provision. 2 3
In 2025 more than 10,000 euthanasia deaths were reported, representing a growing share of total deaths in the country. The Netherlands remains one of only a few nations—alongside Belgium, which removed age limits in 2014—where euthanasia for minors is legally permissible. 1 2
Catholic and pro‑life groups have condemned the case as a “grave ethical violation,” emphasizing that children cannot give informed consent and that the Church teaches euthanasia to be intrinsically evil. Joseph Meaney of the National Catholic Bioethics Center warned that the Netherlands often serves as a bellwether for broader euthanasia liberalization worldwide. 2 3
Experts note that expanding eligibility for assisted dying can lead to further legislative pushes in other jurisdictions, with pending bills in France, the United Kingdom, Scotland, and ongoing debates in the United States, where several states have already legalized assisted suicide. 2 3*
Examine Catholic doctrine on euthanasia for minors
Catholic doctrine treats euthanasia as intrinsically evil regardless of the patient’s age. For minors, the Church applies the same moral principle: because the act would directly intend to end an innocent life, it remains gravely wrong—even when motivated by compassion, relief of suffering, or “best interests.” At the same time, Catholic teaching allows withholding or withdrawing disproportionate/extraordinary medical treatment and provides palliative care, including pain relief even if it may incidentally shorten life, provided death is not intended.
In Evangelium Vitae, euthanasia is defined in the strict sense as an action or omission that “of itself and by intention causes death,” with the purpose of eliminating suffering. The text emphasizes that the decisive features are intention of the will and the methods used.
The Catechism summarizes the moral evaluation very directly:
So Catholic doctrine does not primarily debate “how much suffering” exists; it debates the moral object of the act: directly killing a person.
Evangelium Vitae requires distinguishing euthanasia from the decision to forego “aggressive medical treatment”—procedures that no longer correspond to the patient’s real situation because they are disproportionate in relation to expected results or impose an excessive burden.
When death is clearly imminent and inevitable, one may “refuse forms of treatment that would only secure a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life,” while also noting that one must not interrupt the normal care due to the sick person.
This is crucial for minors because families and clinicians may feel pressured to choose “some intervention or no intervention.” Catholic moral teaching distinguishes:
The Catechism states that even when death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted.
For minors, this principle appears explicitly in the Church’s more recent magisterial teaching on pediatric end-of-life care (see below).
A common ethical worry is whether pain relief might cross into euthanasia—especially when sedation reduces consciousness.
The Catechism teaches that:
Evangelium Vitae similarly addresses the question of painkillers and sedatives and confirms that this issue can be morally addressed without intending death, provided the intention is relief of pain rather than killing.
Catholic teaching thus allows robust symptom control at the end of life, but it draws a bright moral line: administering medicine to relieve pain is not the same as administering it to end life.
The clearest direct treatment of minors appears in the CDF’s Samaritanus bonus (2020), addressing critical and terminal phases of life.
The document reaffirms that beginning at conception, children with malformations or other pathologies are “little patients” who must be assisted and accompanied in a manner respectful of life. Their life is described as “sacred, unique, unrepeatable, and inviolable.”
For prenatal conditions described as “incompatible with life” (ending in death shortly) and lacking therapies that improve health, the child “should not be left without assistance,” but must be accompanied until natural death.
It states the “fundamental principle of pediatric care”:
So the Church explicitly links permitted limits on treatment with a firm prohibition against euthanistic intent.
The text explains that it may happen that pharmacological or other therapies aimed at the pathology are suspended during the terminal stage if they are futile or extreme and possibly add suffering.
But it insists that integral care must never cease, including support of essential physiological functions and pain management as appropriate (e.g., hydration, nutrition, thermoregulation, proportionate respiratory support, and management of pain).
And crucially: suspending disproportionate therapies cannot justify withdrawing basic care, including pain relief necessary to accompany the child to a dignified natural death, nor interrupt spiritual care.
A major point for minors concerns the moral misuse of “best interest” reasoning. Samaritanus bonus warns that the ethical/legal concept of the “best interest of the child,” when used in cost-benefit calculations of care, “can in no way form the foundation” for decisions to shorten life to prevent suffering if such decisions involve euthanistic actions or omissions.
While age affects practical issues (like consent capacity), Catholic moral analysis centers on what the act is.
Evangelium Vitae notes the heightened perversion when euthanasia is carried out by those who are supposed to treat with patience and love, or by doctors supposed to care even in painful terminal stages.
It also states that euthanasia becomes especially serious when it takes the form of a killing done by others on a person who has not requested it and has never consented to it.
For minors, this dynamic is typically present: the patient cannot freely consent in the way envisaged by some legal frameworks. Catholic doctrine therefore treats imposed euthanasia as morally grave by its nature, not as a matter of substituted consent.
Evangelium Vitae teaches that laws permitting the direct killing of innocent human beings through euthanasia are opposed to the inviolable right to life; such laws cease to be true morally binding civil law.
The USCCB’s Ethical and Religious Directives states:
This is directly relevant to minors because Catholic hospitals and pediatric programs must shape protocols that provide palliative and comprehensive pediatric care rather than any lethal action.
Catholic doctrine approaches euthanasia for minors with two consistent principles:
In other words: Catholic teaching does not treat minors’ suffering as a license to end life; it treats suffering as a call to more intensive care and accompaniment without intending death.