The Netherlands has euthanised a child under the age of twelve for the first time, reigniting debate over how far euthanasia laws should extend.
Dutch Health Minister Sophie Hermans disclosed the case when she presented the Euthanasia Committee’s annual report to parliament, saying the child died late last year and that the case had been reported to a special review committee. The death follows a 2024 rule change that extended euthanasia to terminally ill children aged one to twelve with no prospect of recovery.
As with all euthanasia cases, the matter has been referred to prosecutors, who will decide whether the doctor complied with the law. Previously, euthanasia was permitted only for newborns and those aged 12 and over. No details were released about the child’s age, sex or medical condition.
The change made the Netherlands the second country, after Belgium, to allow euthanasia for children of all ages. Under the rules, parents must consent, two doctors must agree that the criteria are met and that no treatment is available for the condition. The committee’s guidelines state: “The doctor will involve the child, insofar as they are capable, in the decision and must be satisfied that the child’s life is not being ended against their will.”
Euthanasia currently accounts for about six percent of all deaths in the Netherlands, totalling over ten thousand individuals annually. This marks an increase from 5.8 percent in 2024 to 6 percent in 2025. Pro-euthanasia supporters argue that the law spares dying children from prolonged, unbearable suffering and that parents and doctors are best placed to make such decisions. Critics of the law argue that a young child cannot meaningfully consent to their own death, and that what began in 2002 as a law for consenting adults has steadily widened to include the youngest and most vulnerable.
Consider how the Netherlands arrived here. Euthanasia was legalised in 2002 for consenting adults with terminal illnesses. The public was assured then that strict safeguards would hold the line. Yet the line has shifted, again and again. First came infants under one. Then teenagers. Now, the last group still protected (children aged one to twelve) has been brought within reach. Each expansion was presented as rare, exceptional, and tightly controlled. Each became the foundation for the next.
That concern carries weight here, too. New Zealand legalised euthanasia and assisted dying for terminally ill adults only a few years ago, with familiar assurances of strict and lasting limits. The Netherlands’ experience is a reminder that such limits can shift, and that the question of who qualifies rarely stays settled for long. How a society cares for the suffering, especially children, and what it offers beyond death are urgent questions that demand our immediate and ongoing attention to our euthanasia laws.
*Written by FFNZ staff writers*
