Written by: Hannah Davis – BillyGraham.org
A Dutch review committee has determined that the decision to euthanize a nearly 2-year-old toddler with severe disabilities was “handled well”—while multiple Dutch doctors involved in the case opposed the decision, arguing the child could have improved under different medication.
The toddler, whose gender has not been disclosed, was the first child to be killed under an expanded euthanasia law in the Netherlands that extended the age limit of euthanasia to include children aged 1 to 12, if their parents agree.
The law was expanded in 2024, but it wasn’t until late 2025 that a child was killed. In June, news emerged that the first child had been euthanized, but details remained undisclosed until the committee’s report was released on Sept. 9.
Four doctors within the public prosecution service reviewed the case and decided that the doctors who facilitated and administered the death followed the rules.
According to the committee, the child was born prematurely, had severe brain damage and was unable to communicate. The child was diagnosed with periventricular leukomalacia— which caused visual impairment—had cerebral palsy, was diagnosed with infantile epileptic spasm syndrome, and largely did not respond to epilepsy medication. Due to the epilepsy, the child was restless and often unable to sleep. Additionally, mucus gathered in the lungs, making breathing and swallowing difficult. Though the child was nearly 2 years old, its developmental age was at about six weeks.
The parents asked that their child be euthanized after the child’s doctor concluded that the child was suffering “unbearably” and that his life was “hopeless” to get better.
Per law, the parents sought a second opinion from other doctors. But those doctors disagreed that the child was eligible to be euthanized, on the grounds that there were reasonable alternative solutions. They suggested palliative options and pharmacological alternatives to reduce the seizures.
“[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,” the report stated.
Refusing palliative care, the parents sought another opinion to back their decision.
That third doctor claimed that the “child’s unbearable suffering was clearly evident” and the child was eligible to be euthanized. The doctor backed the first doctor’s claim that there was no possibility that the child’s suffering could be reduced or eliminated, and the only way to end the suffering was by death.
The parents then agreed that the child would be euthanized, and doctors sedated and killed the toddler.