child euthanasia child euthanasia child euthanasia is a form of euthanasia that is applied to children who are gravely ill or have significant birth defects. in 2005, the netherlands became the first country to decriminalize euthanasia for infants with hopeless prognosis and intractable pain. nine years later, belgium amended its 2002 euthanasia act to extend the rights of euthanasia to minors. like euthanasia, there is world-wide public controversy and ethical debate over the moral, philosophical and religious issues of child euthanasia. part of a series oneuthanasia types animal child voluntary non-voluntary involuntary views religious buddhist catholic culture of life euthanasia and the slippery slope right to die right to life groups compassion & choices death with dignity national center dignitas exit international final exit network hemlock society not dead yet care not killing people jack kevorkian philip nitschke barbara coombs lee books final exit the peaceful pill handbook the future of assisted suicide and euthanasia jurisdictions australia canada india luxembourg mexico netherlands new zealand switzerland united kingdom united states uruguay laws rights of the terminally ill act 1995 (australia) baby doe law alternatives assisted suicide palliative care principle of double effect palliative sedation other issues suicide tourism groningen protocol euthanasia device modern history groningen protocol bente hindriks, born in 2001 at groningen university medical center in the netherlands, was immediately diagnosed at birth with the rare genetic disorder, hallopeau-siemens syndrome. the disease features chronic blistering and peeling of the epidermis and mucous membranes. there is no effective treatment, while the damage on the top layer of the skin comes with severe, unmitigated pain. bente's diagnosis was impossible to treat and her prognosis of skin cancer would take her life in five to six years. her pediatrician, dr. eduard verhagen, could do nothing to help. though illegal at the time, bente's parents wished to end her suffering with active euthanasia. ultimately, it is believed that the high dose of morphine that dr. verhagen administered to ease her pain killed bente. four years after bente hindriks' death, dr. verhagen began campaigning for policy change that called for permitting infant euthanasia under specifically strict guidelines. while engaged in this pursuit, dr. verhagen publicly stated that he terminated the lives of four more infants, all with severe cases of spina bifida. called "dr. death" and "a second hitler" by some, he continued along with his hope for a "nationwide protocol that allows each pediatrician this delicate question with due care, knowing he followed the criteria," to end his patients' lives simply out of compassion. he felt that strict regulations on infant euthanasia would prevent uncontrolled and unjustified instances of euthanasia. in 2005, dr. verhagen and dr. sauer, with a team of prosecutors, formalized the groningen protocol. the agreement follows that no charges shall be pressed against physicians who perform end-of-life procedures on infants who meet the following five criteria: the infant's diagnosis and prognosis must be certain. the infant must be experiencing hopeless and unbearable suffering. at least one independent physician must confirm that the first two conditions are met. both parents must give their consent. the termination procedure must be performed in accord with the accepted medical standard. furthermore, neonates and infants who might be considered candidates for end-of-life decisions are divided into three categories: infants with no chance of survival who are likely to die soon after birth, even if they receive the best medical and surgical care available. infants who are sustained by intensive care but have a bleak prognosis. infants who have a hopeless prognosis and experience unbearable suffering. belgium belgium legalized euthanasia for terminally-ill adults in 2002. as it stood then, euthanasia could only be applied to citizens over eighteen years of age or, in rare accounts, a category of individuals called "emancipated minors." in years to follow, the debate on euthanasia opened up to the idea of this same law being extended to minors. on february 13, 2014, an amendment to the 2002 euthanasia act made it legally permissible for minors, regardless of age, to pursue euthanasia as long as they fit a few specific criteria. the amendment states that minors who request euthanasia must exhibit the ability to judge their current state of affairs when in a "medically futile condition of constant and unbearable physical suffering that cannot be alleviated and that will, within a short period of time, result in death, and results from serious and incurable disorder caused by illness or accident." the provisions of this amendment to the 2002 euthanasia act have distinguishable differences between the act applied to adults and minors. first, the law establishes that only physical suffering may be valid for minors, while physical and psychological suffering is plausible reasoning for adults and the "emancipated minors" to pursue end-of-life care by euthanasia. second, it states that the presumed death of a minor should result within a short period of time, whereas no timeframe of expected death is needed for adult cases. finally, it requires that multiple physicians and legal representatives sign-off on the mental capacity of the patient, reinforcing that the minor is competent of their condition and decision to die. ethical debate the concept of child euthanasia has sparked heavy debate. the ethical debate can be broken down into two categories: euthanasia reserved for neonates and infants. euthanasia reserved for minors. groningen protocol dr. eduard verhagen, who developed the groningen protocol, has made clear his stance in endorsing the motivation for the protocol. verhagen clarifies that his protocol does not include infants with ordinary, and otherwise, treatable conditions. rather, the protocol was created to relieve the burden that both the infant and its parents would face in a "life of agonizing pain." others, such as joseph fletcher, founder of situational ethics and a euthanasia proponent, proposed that infanticide be permitted in cases of severe birth defects. fletcher says that unlike the sort of infanticide perpetrated by very disturbed people, in such cases child euthanasia could be considered humane; a logical and acceptable extension of abortion. bioethicists alberto giubilini and francesca minerva go one step further, arguing that killing a newborn "should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled." dr. alan jotkowitz, professor of medicine at ben-gurion university of the negev, argues strongly against the groningen protocol on the basis that idea of a "life not worth living" does not exist. he claims that nowhere in the protocol does it mention only pertaining to terminally-ill infants and the developers of the protocol value the future quality of life more than the current being of the infant. jotkowitz also draws comparisons to the practice of child euthanasia employed by nazi rule through the 1940s. eric kodish and daniel a. beals have compared child euthanasia to infanticide. kodish says "the very notion that there is an "accepted medical standard" for infanticide calls for resistance in the form of civil disobedience." dr. alexander a. kon, a national leader in pediatric critical care medicine and bioethics at university of california san diego school of medicine, outlines that the ethical implications for neonatal euthanasia lies in the lack of "self-determination" for infants compared to adults. kon states, therefore, justification must solely be on the basis of the patient's well-being. though not asserting his position on the groningen protocol, kon's concerns center around the use of paralytic agents in verhagen's infants. as reported by verhagen, "neuromuscular blockers were added shortly before death in 5 cases to prevent gasping, mostly on parental request." according to kon, the practice of making euthanasia more palatable with these agents is something that cannot be justified though he does believe that those in support of neonatal euthanasia have motivations to genuinely help infants the best they can. parental consent and physician duty generally, when a newborn's life is contested, the parents are the ones who determine their child's future. the parents and the doctor both take part in making the decision. when there is persistent disagreement, the case may be taken to court where the decision is made. considerations include the cost of treatment and the newborn's quality of life. the cost of the treatment includes medical resources and their availability. the newborn's quality of life will depend on whether the treatment is applied, continued or ceased, which can result in passive euthanasia. this can also be classified as a crime under certain laws without the approval of parents. there are ongoing debates about parents' roles in choosing euthanasia for their children, and whether this is considered voluntary euthanasia or non-voluntary euthanasia. if considered voluntary euthanasia, it is because the parents authorized it and they have a say in the life of their children. alternatively, if considered non-voluntary euthanasia, it is because the infant is not capable of providing patient consent to the procedure. american bioethicist jacob m. appel argues that pediatric euthanasia may be ethical even in the absence of parental consent. dr. douglas s. diekema, most known for his role in the ashley treatment, argues that in cases where parents act against the best interests of their child, that the state should have ability to intervene. diekema continues on his support of the harm principle being the basis for state intervention, which would allow physicians of the state to override the decisions made by parents if it is determined that their position does not represent the best interests of their child, and rather, is the more harmful procedure. euthanasia for minors extension of the 2002 euthanasia act to belgian minors received both heavy criticism and large applause, launching another ethical debate centered around child euthanasia. luc bovens, professor of philosophy at the london school of economics, explains the three fields of thought opposing this amendment to the 2002 euthanasia act. first, some believe that euthanasia is morally impermissible in general. second, some believe the law was sufficient as is, and that hospital ethics boards should deal with the "emancipated minors" on a case-by-case event. third, some believe euthanasia for minors is more impermissible than adults. bovens outlines the five most used arguments in support of this third point: weightiness: we do not allow minors to vote or buy cigarettes, so why should we allow them to make decisions about life and death? capability of discernment: minors are not capable of judging what is best for them. pressure: minors will be pressured by parents into deciding for euthanasia since it may be best for the parents' emotional or financial needs. sensitivity: minors may unduly wish to satisfy parental expectations or reduce parental stress. sufficient palliative care: physical suffering at the end of one's life can be attenuated by palliative care, and it is the poor state of palliative care that encourages patient requests for euthanasia. bovens believes these five arguments do not carry much weight in the debate; however, he does support arguments defending the wish to retain age restriction and ownership of hospital ethics boards in dealing with individual requests from minors. proponents of the new law argue this amendment helps avoid discrimination, clarifies legal matters and improves consistency in medical practice and decision-making. previously, euthanasia could be performed for "emancipated minors," but not for minors deemed non-emancipated though otherwise competent. those favoring child euthanasia viewed this to be unfair, stating that the non-emancipated minors may be similar in levels of competence to emancipated minors, and thus, suffering to the same extent. verhagen supports this, with the claim that an age restriction of a certain number of years is arbitrary in nature, and that "self-determination knows no age limit." furthermore, proponents believe the extension will clarify the legality of the matter for physicians who are treating terminally-ill minors, resulting in less unlawful behavior and more consistency in medical decision-making. physician sentiment a major challenge for physicians tasked with the medical decision-making of babies born very premature or severely disabled with neurological damage and poor quality of life for the future presents another side to the bioethics topic of child euthanasia. a 2017 study looked into the end-of-life decisions made by neonatologists in argentina. the questionnaire investigated the method of their actions in response to critical neonates. the results showed that more than 75% of the neonatologists would initiate treatment in premature infants of unknown prognosis, based on newborn viability. it followed that more than 80% of physicians withdrew