First Toddler Euthanized in the Netherlands

Nobody would deny that the situation was tragic.

The toddler — whose name and sex are not disclosed in the official government report (this article will use masculine pronouns for simplicity) — was clearly suffering. Born extremely prematurely, he’d suffered several rounds of sepsis and had been left with damage to the brain’s white matter (periventricular leukomalacia), spastic cerebral palsy, and severe visual limitations. By the time he was eight months old, he’d developed infantile epileptic spasms syndrome (IESS) and was experiencing severe seizures several times a day. Understandably, he struggled to sleep as his lungs filled with fluid, making eating, swallowing, and breathing difficult.

The only criterion is that the child is suffering “unbearably” and that the situation is “hopeless.”

The drugs he was on seemed to do almost nothing, and at nearly 24 months old, the child was just hitting the developmental milestones of your average six-week-old newborn.

The whole thing sounds like a nightmare to any parent. Watching your child suffer endlessly while you sit helplessly on the sidelines is an experience no one would wish on his worst enemy. At some point, all anyone wants is for the whole horrible thing to come to a merciful end. And so this Dutch toddler’s parents asked their child’s doctor to kill him.

This would be a crime story, except that in the Netherlands it’s been legal to euthanize children between the ages of 1 and 12 ever since the government expanded the country’s euthanasia laws in 2024. The only criterion is that the child is suffering “unbearably” and that the situation is “hopeless.” But nobody had actually gone through the process until now. (RELATED: First Child Under 12 Euthanized Since the Netherlands Law Passed)

The first doctors asked to give a second opinion on the toddler’s situation recommended a change in medication and palliative care. While the parents did explore the secondary medication option (which resulted in devastating side effects), they didn’t want to explore palliative care because they believed “the proposed treatments would only prolong the child’s suffering and that the aim was to end or at least alleviate the child’s suffering.”

Yet another doctor was consulted, and he agreed that the child did meet the legal requirements for euthanasia. So, sometime in late 2025, his doctor gradually sedated the nearly 24-month-old toddler, put him into a coma, and let him die.

Lest you think this is a problem we’ve relegated to the confines of countries crazy enough to wholeheartedly embrace a liberal world order, so-called “Death with Dignity” is expanding rapidly in the United States. Just a few days ago, one such law went into effect in Illinois (where it’s facing pushback from Catholic nuns, a small-town pharmacist, and the Chicago diocese, all of whom don’t want to be penalized for refusing to participate). In New York, a similar act went into effect last month.

Of course, no state in the Union allows kids to be the victims of assisted suicide. They all require that patients be at least 18, be given a certain number of months to live, and have enough mental capacity to actually consent to any procedures. So why does killing a toddler in the Netherlands matter for Americans? (RELATED: What Happened to ‘Do No Harm’?)

It’s true that there’s a slight difference between an 18-year-old asking his doctors to kill him and the parents of a toddler making that same request on his behalf. The problem is, once we’ve accepted that the relief of suffering is sufficient to morally justify ending a life, the degree of consent is the only thing determining whether a particular use of euthanasia is repugnant and immoral. We have merely drawn a line in the sand.

While it may seem hyperbolic to argue that it’s inevitable that every Medical Aid in Dying or Death with Dignity Act will be extended to minors eventually, the fact is, lines in the sand are easily moved. It took the Netherlands just two-and-a-half decades to get from voluntary adult euthanasia to killing toddlers. If you’re watching your 24-month-old suffer excruciatingly, death starts to seem like a merciful out.

And this is where Christians — who believe that some acts are intrinsically wrong, that God alone determines life and death, and that suffering can be redemptive — struggle to make the argument against euthanasia. How do you tell a society built on a consent-based morality that man should not have the power to determine when innocent life should end?

We can warn governments that assisted suicide laws have the potential to threaten the human rights recognized by the modern order. We can argue that these laws open the way for abuse. None of that will likely do anything more than slightly slow the march of widespread euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Ultimately, the only way out is to convert Western civilization.

READ MORE from Aubrey Harris:

St. Paul’s Cathedral and Fabric Bring Nightclub Culture to the Nave

Like It Or Not, Data Centers Are Part of the Midterms Now

Just When You Thought Girl Scouts Couldn’t Get Worse, the Muslims Take Over