1-year-old euthanized in the Netherlands — and committee with ghoulish name says that's just fine

A statutory review committee in the Netherlands has issued a lengthy statement defending the "termination of life" of a 1-year-old child.

The incident of euthanasia occurred late last year and involved a child described as "nearly two years old."

This second group also claimed that 'there was no continuous unbearable suffering' and that 'reasonable alternative solutions existed.'

The New York Times reported on the incident in June, though specifics regarding the case were then scant. At the time, Minister of Health Sophie Hermans merely acknowledged that a case for euthanizing a child between 1 and 12 had been sent to a committee for review the previous year and that a "termination of life" had followed.

The horrifying, heartbreaking details have since been released by a group called the Review Committee for Late Termination of Pregnancy and Termination of Life in Newborns and Children Aged 1 to 12 Years.

According to the committee, the child was born prematurely and had severe epilepsy, cerebral palsy, and brain damage as well as other debilitating conditions.

Citing the physician who treated and ultimately euthanized the child, the committee said the child endured regular seizures, a sleep disorder, side effects from medication, difficulty swallowing and breathing, and increased risk of infection.

Based on the physician's assessment, the committee claimed that "the likelihood of death at a very young age due to complications was considered very high."

RELATED: The unbearable burden may still be worth bearing

CorbalanStudio/Getty Images

The committee repeatedly argued that the euthanizing physician did everything by the book in accordance with the 2024 statute change permitting the euthanization of children between 1 and 12 in limited circumstances. According to the committee, the parents requested the termination of life for their child and their position on the matter remained "consistent."

The committee also said doctors "outside the region" were consulted for a second opinion. This second group of doctors concurred that the child was suffering and that the child's situation was "irreversible" and that "there was no realistic chance of improvement."

However, this second group also claimed that "there was no continuous unbearable suffering" and that "reasonable alternative solutions existed," such as other medications and palliative care. According to the committee, the doctor indicated that he attempted the interventions the second group recommended but that the child's condition only worsened.

The doctor then consulted yet another "outside" doctor, who agreed that ending the child's life was the only way to alleviate the suffering.

Citing the physician, the committee seemed confident in the predicted future of the child and implied that the child would be a burden to care for:

• "The child was severely multiply (intellectually and motorically) disabled, and the prognosis was that the child would remain dependent on care for life for all activities of daily living."
• "The child suffered from conditions with a limited life expectancy, without any prospect of improvement in quality of life."
• "The suffering was determined by the permanent, severe brain damage with no prospect of any reasonable degree of development and the eventual permanent lack of any possibility of self-reliance."

In a section titled "execution," the committee recounted the death of the child. "At the parents' request, the doctor chose a method in which the child was gently put to sleep," the statement said. Then after falling into "a very deep state of sedation," the child died.

The committee acknowledged that the child could not and therefore did not consent to the euthanasia.

"In view of all the above facts, circumstances, and considerations, the committee is of the opinion that the physician acted with due care," the committee determined.

Eduard Verhagen, a professor of pediatric palliative care at UMCG in Groningen, supports the committee's conclusion: "It is good that the committee reached such a well-considered judgment. Many physicians and parents will benefit from this in the future."

The case will still be reviewed by the Public Prosecution Service.

H/T: LifeNews.com

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!