treatment which yielded no positive outcomes. silberberg and gallo's analysis showed the current sentiment of physicians with respect to infant euthanasia apply some variation of therapeutic activism, yet the large majority of those same doctors will withdraw life-preserving treatments when no advancements are made. religious views morals derived through religious scripts and teachings largely influence views on euthanasia. a recent psychological study in belgium showed that people who disapprove the legalization of child euthanasia tend to be religious, have low flexibility in existential issues, endorse collectivistic morality (values of loyalty and purity), and/or express ingroup-oriented prosocial inclinations. buddhism buddhist views are not in favor of the intentional ending of life. the dalai lama explains all life has "precious" value, with human life being the most valuable. according to the dalai lama, abortion is an act of killing within traditional buddhist views, yet we must judge each instance on a case-by-case basis. he cites an example where a woman with pregnancy complications could result in two deaths rather than just the baby's if no intervention is done. the dalai lama expands the idea of "exceptional circumstances" to a case where a person is a coma with no chance of recovering his or her pre-coma condition. catholicism in 1995, pope john paul ii spoke on matters concerning the moral evaluation of prenatal diagnostic techniques which allow for the early detection of abnormalities in the unborn fetus, siding with traditional catholic views on life. pope john paul ii continued by stating that foregoing extraordinary means to save one's life is not the equivalent of euthanasia, but rather an acceptance of the delicate balance of human life. he summarizes, "human life, as a gift from god, is sacred and inviolable. for this reason, procured abortion and euthanasia are absolutely unacceptable." pope francis shared his stance on euthanasia in 2017. he called for more thought into balancing medical efforts to prolong life and withholding those same efforts when death seems inevitable. pope francis echoed pope john paul ii's remarks on suspending medical procedures beyond conventional means and reaffirmed that euthanasia is always wrong, being that its intention is to end life. hinduism hinduism allows for multiple interpretations on the concept of euthanasia. the majority of hindus believe doctors should not fulfill requests for euthanasia, as it will damage the karma of both parties. others say that performing euthanasia procedures goes against the teaching of ahimsa – to do no harm. yet, some hindus believe that the act of ending a painful life is rather a good deed. in a 2012 study centered around hindu college students and their views on ending the lives of severely disabled neonates, it was found that 38% had no firm opinion on the acceptability of terminating these lives. islam islam forbids any form of euthanasia, as it is determined by god how long a person lives. life is a sacred thing bestowed upon humans by god. the aforementioned 2012 study involving hindu university students also analyzed the same measures of 150 muslim students. the study found that, in accordance with the teachings of islam, the muslim students were more likely to oppose the purposeful termination of the damaged neonates. judaism yoel jakobovits, a devout orthodox jewish physician who holds academic positions at johns hopkins university school of medicine and at sinai hospital of baltimore, summarizes the religious jewish attitudes that appear to govern the topic of neonatal euthanasia. jakobovits states that all human life is valuable, irrespective of potential disabilities or impairments and actively forfeiting life by any means would constitute murder. he continues that pain-reducing agents are permissible for terminally ill patients, and it is the right of a terminally-ill person to refuse a medical procedure that may extend his or her life. lastly, withholding of nutrition, oxygen and blood is forbidden in judaism. child euthanasia by country main article: legality of euthanasia belgium on february 13, 2014, belgium became the first country to allow voluntary child euthanasia without any age restriction. however, a child must ask for the procedure and verify that they understand what will happen. the parents must also consent to euthanasia of the child. the child's doctor must confirm that they are "in a hopeless medical situation of constant and unbearable suffering that cannot be eased and which will cause death in the short term." since its legalization in 2014, three children have died by euthanasia in belgium. netherlands euthanasia is currently legal in the netherlands for children between 12 and 16 years old, with mandatory consent from the patient and their parents. children between 16 and 18 years old do not need consent from their parents, but the parents should be included in the decision-making process. it is also legal for babies up to a year old with parental consent. the patient must be enduring "unbearable and endless suffering" and at least two doctors must agree to the procedure. eduard verhagen has documented several cases of infant euthanasia. together with colleagues and prosecutors, he has developed a protocol to be followed in those cases. prosecutors will refrain from pressing charges if this "groningen protocol" is followed. this protocol prompted a very critical response from elio sgreccia, the head of the pontifical academy for life. united kingdom the nuffield council on bioethics launched an enquiry in 2006 into critical care in fetal and neonatal medicine, looking at the ethical, social and legal issues which may arise when making decisions surrounding treating extremely premature babies. the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists recommended that a public debate be started around the options of "non-resuscitation, withdrawal of treatment decisions, the best interests test and active euthanasia" for "the sickest of newborns". the college stated that there should be discussion over whether "deliberate intervention" to cause death in severely disabled newborn babies should be legalised; it stated that while it was not necessarily in favour of the move, it felt the issues should be debated. the college stated in this submission that having these options would save some families from years of emotional and financial suffering; it might also reduce the number of late abortions, "as some parents would be more confident about continuing a pregnancy and taking a risk on outcome". in response to this proposal, pieter sauer, a senior paediatrician in the netherlands, argued that british neonatologists already perform "mercy killings" and should be allowed to do so openly. the church of england submission to the enquiry supported the view that doctors should be given the right to withhold treatment from seriously disabled newborn babies in exceptional circumstances, and the christian medical fellowship stated that when treatment would be "a burden" this was not euthanasia. united states