Now the Netherlands is euthanising children

For the first time in the history of the Netherlands, a child has been euthanised by the state. The Dutch health minister revealed this week that Sophie Hermans, a child under the age of 12, was given a lethal injection in late 2025.

This case follows another relaxation of the safeguards on euthanasia in the Netherlands. In 2002, the Dutch decriminalised euthanasia and assisted suicide for competent adults. The law expanded to cover 16- and 17-year-olds, with parental consultation, and 12- to 15-year-olds with parental consent. In 2023, another change in the law allowed children under the age of 12, according to Dutch MP Harry Bevers, to ‘die with dignity’ if there is no possibility of recovery and they faced unbearable pain and distress.

The Netherlands joins Belgium as a purveyor of euthanasia with no age restrictions. Belgium legalised child euthanasia in 2014.

The case of Sophie Hermans is shocking in its own terms – but observers in the UK and elsewhere would do well to note its implications. Euthanasia in the Netherlands is officially only permitted if the request comes from the patient and if a doctor agrees that they are suffering unbearably. But how can a minor request something a child cannot possibly comprehend – namely, the end of his or her life? How can a young child understand the need to maintain his or her dignity? The age of consent for sex is 16 in the Netherlands, and those below the age of 18 cannot legally get married. The Dutch government advises that children under the age of 15 should not use social media. And yet, Dutch children now have the ‘right’ to request a lethal injection.

In fact, the Netherlands appears to be moving relentlessly and thoughtlessly towards a euthanasia model employed in Europe in the 1930s. Then, euthanasia proposals began as requests from patients. However, when Nazi Germany began its euthanasia programme in 1939, the ‘patients’ were generally children with physical and intellectual disabilities. They did not consent – let alone request – euthanasia.

No one would seriously suggest that modern Dutch doctors can be compared to murderous Nazi doctors. Nor should we ignore the worrying logic that underpins so-called assisted dying. As the killing of this Dutch child suggests, the state considers some lives not to be worth living.

There are many troubling cases in the short history of assisted dying in the Netherlands. In 2016, former nursing home doctor Marinou Arends enlisted the help of family members in holding down a 74-year old woman who suffered from dementia so she could be euthanised. In an interview, Arends admitted that she decided to go ahead with the euthanasia, despite the woman stating in an advance directive that she only wanted euthanasia ‘when I deem the time ripe for it myself’ and ‘when I am still somewhat mentally competent’. When Arends herself asked the woman if she wanted to be killed, she said: ‘I think that goes too far, death, no, I don’t think I know that yet.’

So why was she euthanised? Arends said her decision was based on a subjective assessment when she visited the woman in the nursing home. ‘Gradually, you see that she is utterly miserable all day long. And that is another word for suffering.’ In other words, the patient was killed because the doctor deemed death in her best interests.

Similarly, the expansion of euthanasia to children was motivated – in the words of then health minister Ernst Kuipers – by the hope it would ‘end the “dilemma for doctors” to administer euthanasia to young children who can’t decide for themselves’. The voluntary part of ‘voluntary’ euthanasia seems to have disappeared.

The bureaucratic expansion of euthanasia (Kuipers had hoped to make the Dutch expansion to children a simple regulation rather than a law that would be voted on) often happens with only a very few people realising it. A recent poll in Canada found most Canadians unaware that euthanasia – euphemistically termed Medical Assistance in Dying – was set to expand to those suffering from mental illness.

All of this is why we in the UK must look very critically at the legislation recently brought forward by Labour MP Lauren Edwards. The bill – which supporters will not allow to be amended – is not safe in its current form. Indeed, that is why there were 1,200 amendments tabled when it was first introduced by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater. And the experience of every jurisdiction where euthanasia is legal would tell us that it would only get worse.

Proponents of euthanasia talk a lot about compassion and dignity. They don’t tend to want to talk about children being put to death by lethal injections. Is that something we really want?

Kevin Yuill is emeritus professor of history at the University of Sunderland and CEO of Humanists Against Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia.