A medical review committee in the Netherlands has concluded that the doctor who oversaw the country’s first euthanasia of a child “had acted with due care [zorgvuldig].” According to the committee, euthanasia for children under 12 is only permissible if “termination of life is the only reasonable way to end the child’s unbearable suffering without prospect of improvement.” Such a utilitarian law utterly fails to treat every person as an image-bearer of God.

The child’s condition was extremely difficult, and the child may have died soon in any event. Born abroad prematurely at a gestational age of 26 weeks, three days, the child suffered from extensive disabilities. Brain damage in two areas caused spastic cerebral palsy and “visual impairment” (the degree of blindness, whether full or partial, was not specified).

As the child grew, he or she (the report is coldly mute on the child’s sex, name, or anything suggestive of personhood) also developed West syndrome, a severe and nearly untreatable form of epilepsy. The child also suffered from coughing fits, a swallowing disorder, and difficulty coughing up mucus. These conditions were expected to lead to an increased risk of respiratory infections, including aspiration pneumonia.

“At the age of almost two years, the child’s developmental age was estimated to be that of a six-week-old baby,” the report stated. “There was deemed to be a very high probability of the child dying at a very young age due to complications.”

Such tragic circumstances are the result of a world marred by sin — perhaps not any particular sin, but simply the fallen condition of a world where “death reign[s]” (Romans 5:17).

“The creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it,” wrote Paul, “in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now” (Romans 8:20-22).

The doctor responsible for the case consulted other physicians in other regions for their opinions. More than one concluded that the absence of continuous, unbearable suffering made palliative alternatives preferable to euthanasia. But the parents gradually settled on the view that the child was suffering unbearably and without hope.

As a parent, this author cannot imagine how these parents could fix their hearts on putting their child to death. Certainly they endured untold grief, disappointment, and despair for their child. But was there no one in their lives to comfort and encourage them in the darkest moments? No church gathering around them in love and prayer, bringing meals, holding their hands, providing free babysitting? Not even a medical team encouraging them to fight for life?

The medical committee’s report says nothing about the parents’ path to that terrible decision. And their silence stands for a painful void. Such is the post-Christian condition of Europe.

Eventually, the doctor did find another physician whose “second” opinion concluded the child suffered unbearably and continuously, clearing the way for the doctor to proceed with euthanasia. Strangely, the medical committee did not question why this other doctor gave a contrary opinion to other “second opinions sought, nor why his opinion was given more consideration.

In clinically cold fashion, the committee reports that “The child was aged almost 24 months at the time of the termination of life.” They should have written that the child was put to death shortly before his or her second birthday.

In late 2025, Dutch Public Health Minister Sophie Hermans informed Parliament that the doctor had ended the life of a terminally ill child. The case is the first such instance since the Netherlands authorized euthanasia for children under 12 in 2024.

Initially, lawmakers expected up to five cases of child euthanasia per year. Fortunately, Dutch parents have used the law far less frequently. Even such morbid lawmaking cannot entirely erase parental bonds of affection.

Dutch reactions to the case seem surprisingly upbeat. Eduard Verhagen, a professor of pediatric palliative care at University Medical Center Groningen cheered 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,” he said.

Verhagen’s position was that current laws governing euthanasia in the Netherlands have far too much gray area, leaving doctors to wonder about whether they will face consequences for ending a life. “It is a complicated situation for a doctor,” he said. “After all, he performed the procedure to end the life and then has to wait months to find out whether or not he will be prosecuted.”

But that very predicament underscores the moral horror of euthanasia. Doctors must wonder whether they will be prosecuted because taking life is forbidden in every other context. Indeed, taking life cuts against a doctor’s own instincts and training. “You aren’t trained for it, and there is a huge threshold to cross,” Verhagen continued. “Yet, sometimes you reach the point where you do cross that threshold. When you see that the suffering is so severe and realize there is no other reasonable way to end it — other than allowing the child to die — then, as a doctor, you are prepared to take that step. But it remains a difficult decision: difficult medically, but also emotionally.”

Euthanasia remains emotionally difficult for a doctor because the conscience God has placed in every human soul cries out, “No! That is a human being! Human life is precious, and you must not snuff it out.”

Yet even the review committee seemed unwilling to recognize the precious image of God in this disabled child, nearly to the point of denying his or her humanity. “In the course of the child’s short life, there was a complete lack of development or improvement” they wrote. “Every facet of ‘being human’ in terms of motor skills, behaviour and personality was severely affected, and there would be no improvement.”

This account of euthanasia in the Netherlands should set the ears of Americans a-tingling because the circumstances and arguments are the same ones often used in defense of abortion. A child faces severe disabilities. Doctors offer little hope for improvement. Parents fear a lifetime of suffering for their child — not to mention inconvenience for themselves — and so they abort. The child receives a death sentence for the crime of having ill health.

All the Netherlands has done is postpone the execution of the sentence for a couple of years. It does not change the moral dimensions of the case. It merely brings the monstrosity out into the light of day.