Netherlands Allows Euthanizing Newborn Babies, Canada Could be Next

Last September, several media outlets reported that Canada’s Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) program – legalized in 2016 to permit doctor-assisted suicide – had reignited debate over whether newborns could be included at some point.

The debate began in 2022, during hearings before Parliament’s Special Joint Committee on MAiD, when Louis Roy of the Quebec College of Physicians suggested that eligibility could one day extend to “babies from birth to one year of age” that were born with severe deformities or disabilities.

The reaction across Canada was immediate shock. Even Federal Disabilities Minister Carla Qualtrough, who is legally blind and a strong advocate for people with disabilities, responded candidly: “There is no world where I would accept that.”

Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

Her outrage reflects how many Canadians feel: that a fundamental moral boundary had been crossed. Even in a country that had already extended doctor-assisted death beyond cases of terminal illness, including infants incapable of consent would be a profound shift.

Yet the Netherlands already permits euthanasia for newborns under the Groningen Protocol. In such cases, doctors may authorize euthanasia if the infant is deemed to be experiencing unbearable suffering with no hope of improvement, and with parental consent. However, such assessments are inherently subjective.

Notably, the nature of this debate is not limited to Canada and the Netherlands. Globally, an increasing number of national policies are permitting the intentional ending of lives for the medically vulnerable – those who cannot advocate for themselves. The underlying justification is often malleable, serving as a standard used to permit the termination of life both before and after birth.

Consider the United States. Abortion used to occur only under rare circumstances early in pregnancy. Over time, killing the unborn became permissible for any reason, even in later stages of pregnancy. This prompted the passage of the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act to protect newborns, affirming that a baby born alive is legally a person.

Still, even this law does not clearly define which interventions must be provided in every circumstance, or the penalties for doctors who fail to act. Subjective medical judgments ultimately decide whether a newborn receives life-affirming care, which can allow practices that amount to infanticide.

Unsurprisingly, the killing of tens of millions of people through abortion has undermined the belief that we are children of God and made in His image. It also casts aside the virtuous calling we have to protect life, including the lives of the disabled, elderly, and chronically ill.

For example, in the 1980s, bioethicist Daniel Callahan argued that people who relied on feeding tubes were “living too long.” This view helped provoke a redefinition of feeding tubes as “medical treatment” rather than basic care. Today, in all 50 states, it is legal to withhold or withdraw feeding tubes from patients who cannot swallow on their own.

This shift has opened Pandora’s box, enabling the premature ending of lives for many who depend on such basic care. Countless individuals – some needing only temporary assistance, others permanent support, like my sister Terri Schiavo – now face the risk of being starved and dehydrated to death.

Terri’s inhumane death in 2005, after her feeding tube was removed, remains one of the most consequential cases in American history. It stands as a heartbreaking example of how judgments about “quality of life” can override compassion, turning medical decisions into life-or-death determinations that govern public and medical discourse.

This is the natural progression when society permits the destruction of innocent life in the womb: the same utilitarian approach applied to our vulnerable unborn brothers and sisters will increasingly be applied after birth.

This “ends justify the means” worldview can be attributed, in part, to prominent figures such as the influential ethicist Peter Singer, who once held a chair at Princeton University. Singer popularized what is known as “personhood theory,” which distinguishes between being human and being a person, defining the latter by functional capacities such as self-awareness, rationality, and the ability to value one’s own existence – an approach that disregards inherent human dignity.

By Singer’s reasoning, newborns with severe disabilities are not “persons” in the moral sense, and, under certain circumstances, killing such infants is not considered morally equivalent to killing a person. Unfortunately, Singer’s extremist ideas are intertwined with real-world trends in prenatal screening.

In the U.S., studies indicate that 60–80% of pregnancies diagnosed with Down syndrome prenatally end in abortion, with some countries such as Iceland reporting rates close to 100%. Similar patterns exist for other disabilities, including spina bifida, despite the risk of false positives for both conditions.

Indeed, history offers a harrowing warning. Nazi Germany’s Aktion T4 program did not begin in extermination camps, but with physicians and bureaucrats classifying disabled children and the medically fragile as “life unworthy of life.”

Framed as compassion and efficiency, the program led to the systematic killing of over 270,000 vulnerable people. The moral reasoning that some lives lack autonomy, productivity, or awareness worthy of protection disturbingly mirrors modern medical practice.

The question before us is not merely about alleviating suffering, expanding choice, or any other rationale used to end the lives of those who require protection; it is first and foremost about moral principles.

If human dignity is deemed unimportant, conditional, or dependent on cognitive ability, independence, or perceived quality of life, then no one is truly safe. Once we deny some human beings their status as moral persons, legal protections inevitably erode for everyone.

Minister Carla Qualtrough’s outrage resonates with the public because she recognized a line most people instinctively know should not be crossed. But outrage alone is not enough. The moral and ethical boundaries of how we care for our weak and defenseless must be clearly and unwaveringly defined.

If there truly is “no world” in which we would accept the intentional ending of a disabled child’s life, then society must recognize that every human life bears the image of Jesus Christ, with equal value and inherent dignity, regardless of age, ability, or dependence. Without this foundation, the protection of the vulnerable does not vanish all at once; it simply fades away.

LifeNews Note: Bobby Schindler and his family work as patient advocates, establishing the non-profit Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network in honor of his sister, Terri. Click here to learn more about the Life & Hope Network.

The post Netherlands Allows Euthanizing Newborn Babies, Canada Could be Next appeared first on LifeNews.com.