Euthanasia accounts for 4% of causes of death in Belgium, according to a report
Belgium recorded 4,486 euthanasia deaths in 2025, marking a 12.4 percent increase and accounting for 4 percent of all national deaths. The practice has grown significantly from 235 cases in 2003 to a cumulative total exceeding 42,000, indicating a shift toward normalization. Nearly 25 percent of individuals who chose euthanasia in 2025 were not terminally ill, reflecting a broader interpretation of suffering beyond imminent death. Euthanasia cases involving psychiatric or cognitive disorders rose by 36 percent in 2025, with the vast majority of these patients not facing terminal illness.
4 days ago
Some recent Belgium euthanasia statistics describe a continued rise in assisted suicide and euthanasia, with the report also highlighting a growing share of cases involving people who were not expected to die soon and those with psychiatric-related diagnoses. 1
In 2025, 4,486 people died through assisted suicide or euthanasia in Belgium, which the report says equals 4% of all deaths. 1 The figure represents a 12.4% increase compared with the previous year. 1
The report characterizes 2025 as part of a long-term upward trend since legalization. 1 It says the first full year after legalization in 2003 recorded 235 cases, while the later cumulative total has reached more than 42,000 deaths and the annual numbers have surpassed 4,000. 1
The report says that in 2025, 24.9% of people who requested euthanasia were not expected to die in the near term from natural causes. 1 It adds that these included individuals with conditions such as depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, or sensory impairments like blindness, rather than terminal illnesses. 1
It also reports growth in euthanasia cases tied to psychiatric or cognitive disorders. 1 In 2025, 151 individuals with such conditions as their primary diagnosis died through euthanasia, a 36% increase from the prior year, and it says more than 92% were not terminally ill. 1
The report states that Belgium’s legal framework does not require a patient to be terminally ill to qualify for euthanasia. 1 It also says that since 2014, age restrictions were removed, allowing minors deemed capable of discernment to request the procedure. 1
The report claims that at least one minor died under these provisions in 2025. 1
The report says the statistics have renewed ethical and political debate in Belgium and internationally. 1 It cites advocacy groups such as Right to Life UK, which argues the data indicate the system is drifting beyond original safeguards, pointing to non-terminal and psychiatric cases as evidence of expanding interpretation. 1
From a Catholic perspective, the report says the Church opposes euthanasia, framing it as contrary to the sanctity of life and as a failure of care, accompaniment, and solidarity with those who suffer. 1
The article describes Belgium’s experience as moving from regulating exceptional end-of-life decisions toward a system it characterizes as increasingly intersecting with mental health, chronic conditions, and youth. 1 It frames the broader issue as asking how far the practice can extend once it is legalized and whether that extension changes the original rationale. 1
Euthanasia’s rise challenges Catholic doctrine on sanctity of life
The growing public acceptance—and legalization in some places—of euthanasia is often presented as a moral “correction” to suffering and loss. From the standpoint of Catholic doctrine, however, this trend does not merely adjust medical practice; it proposes a different moral meaning of the act itself. Catholic teaching therefore challenges the very premises behind the change: that human life is fundamentally sacred, that deliberate killing is never justified by appeals to “quality of life” or autonomy, and that true compassion “leads to sharing another’s pain” rather than ending the person’s life.
The Church’s position begins with a basic moral fact: every human life, from conception until death, is sacred because the person is willed by God. This means the sanctity of life is not contingent on health, productivity, capability, or even the subjective experience of suffering.
On euthanasia specifically, the core argument is not a negotiation of competing values, but the moral object of the chosen act. The Catechism-level moral intuition is sharpened in the teaching of Samaritanus bonus (CDF, 2020): the “correct definition” of euthanasia depends on “the intention of the will and in the methods used,” and on the action being done “in order that all pain may in this way be eliminated.”
From that definition, the conclusion follows: “Euthanasia, therefore, is an intrinsically evil act, in every situation or circumstance.” In other words, Catholic moral reasoning denies that euthanasia can become morally acceptable by circumstance, even when suffering is real and intense.
The same document underscores that euthanasia involves direct, intentional killing, and thus cannot be treated as a permissible medical option:
euthanasia is “the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human person.”
It also extends moral clarity beyond the immediate “act” to those who would collaborate: formal or immediate material cooperation is described as a grave sin against human life, and no authority can legitimately recommend or permit such an action. This point matters socially because legalization often implies institutional endorsement—precisely the kind of moral ambiguity the Church warns against.
Modern arguments frequently claim that euthanasia is an act of compassion and respect for personal autonomy. Catholic teaching does not deny that suffering is unbearable or that patients deserve respect. Rather, it argues that compassion has a particular moral content: it must not become the will to kill.
John Paul II’s formulation—quoted and echoed in later Church documents—is blunt:
euthanasia is “a false mercy… True ‘compassion’ leads to sharing another’s pain; it does not kill the person whose suffering we cannot bear.”
So the dispute is not whether care matters, but what kind of care is morally permissible. The Church argues that ending a life is not care for the suffering person; it is “a help to die,” not a help to live with dignity until natural death.
On autonomy, Samaritanus bonus directly rejects the premise that autonomy can create a right to dispose of one’s life arbitrarily. It states:
“since there is no right to dispose of one’s life arbitrarily, no health care worker can be compelled to execute a non-existent right.”
In the same section, the document also addresses cases in which a request arises from anguish and despair: even if personal guilt is reduced or absent, the nature of the act does not change—because the object remains killing. That is an important Catholic distinction: the Church treats psychological pain seriously, while still rejecting the conclusion that killing becomes good in itself.
A major public misunderstanding is to treat euthanasia as simply “the last form of care.” Catholic teaching distinguishes end-of-life care from euthanasia by insisting that the response to suffering must be loving, accompanied, and remedial—not lethal.
The Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (USCCB) give a concrete directive for Catholic institutions:
This approach aligns with the broader CDF insistence that “compassion” is relational and integrally human—not merely technical. In its letter concerning Catholic hospitals in Belgium, the CDF emphasizes a “relational — and not merely clinical — approach” and the duty never to abandon anyone even in the face of incurable disease.
Finally, Samaritanus bonus warns that, after legalization, certain medical protocols originally intended to limit “aggressive” treatment can become entangled with euthanistic perspectives. It notes concerns about abuse and about situations where patients and families are not consulted due to “ambiguity” in end-of-life laws. That is a key part of the “challenge” the Church perceives: the risk that a system designed for palliative care becomes a system for killing.
Catholic critique is not only about individual acts; it also targets the social meaning of legal authorization.
In Samaritanus bonus, legalized euthanasia is described as gravely unjust because it appeals to a “false right to choose a death.” The document adds that such laws strike at the foundation of the legal order:
It also argues that legalizing euthanasia damages social trust and signals degradation:
Pope Francis’ warning (as quoted in the same CDF letter) helps explain the culture-level issue: societies that accept euthanasia may begin valuing people by “efficiency and utility,” labeling others as “discarded” or “unworthy,” thereby undermining solidarity. Catholic social teaching frames this as a “culture of waste” (and in related texts, a “culture of death”) that the faithful must resist.
John Paul II connects this pattern to social obligation and especially to weak persons. In Evangelium vitae themes echoed in Ecclesia in Asia, the “service of human development begins with the service of life itself,” and no true civil society exists without respect for life—especially for those who cannot defend themselves.
Consistent with this, USCCB teaching states that human life’s dignity is the foundation of a moral vision for society, and it explicitly includes euthanasia and assisted suicide among “direct threats” to sanctity of life.
If euthanasia is intrinsically evil, Catholic life-giving practice cannot be limited to “refusing.” The alternative must be positively embodied.
John Paul II describes the specific mission of health-care workers:
to become “ministers of life” in all its stages, especially in those marked by weakness and illness.
He also identifies euthanasia as an alarming symptom of the “culture of death,” and insists euthanasia is an attack on life no human authority can justify.
The CDF’s letter stresses the duty not to abandon anyone in the presence of incurable diseases, and portrays the “relational” approach as an imposed duty.
The Brothers of Charity case illustrates that Church teaching is not treated as optional moral advice: it can determine whether an institution can be considered “Catholic” if it moves toward euthanasia-permissive practice or moral ambiguity. The letter lists concrete ways the reported position conflicted with Catholic principles—especially around respecting life “always,” the scope of euthanasia possibilities, and collaboration with euthanasia within the institute.
The rise of euthanasia challenges Catholic doctrine not mainly because it is a new medical technique, but because it proposes a moral permission to kill a person in response to suffering—an act Catholic teaching defines as intrinsically evil in its object, regardless of circumstance. Catholic doctrine responds with a consistent alternative: palliative and holistic care with psychological and spiritual support, aimed at living with dignity until natural death, and a social refusal to let “efficiency,” “utility,” or despair redefine the value of a human life.