The recent euthanasia of a nearly two-year-old child in the Netherlands shows that the idea of mercy is “often used nowadays to justify ethically questionable actions,” a top-ranking Dutch cardinal has said.
Speaking to Crux Now, Cardinal Wim Eijk, president of the Dutch bishops’ conference who also serves as the conference’s bishop on medical ethics, explained that the case of the disabled child who was euthanized late last year shows that mercy is misunderstood in Western cultures.
“The word ‘merciful’ is often used nowadays to justify ethically questionable actions. However, is it merciful to violate the fundamental dignity of the human person by ending their life?” Eijk said.
“What is truly merciful is providing adequate care, in this case in the form of palliative care. If standard forms of palliative care prove insufficient to reduce suffering to a tolerable level, palliative sedation may offer a solution,” he added.
The child was born prematurely at 26 weeks and suffered brain damage which resulted in cerebral palsy and visual impairment. He also suffered epileptic fits, had mucus on his lungs, and couldn’t sleep properly.
His parents and the doctor decided to end the child’s life, taking advantage of new legislation in the Netherlands that allows for euthanasia of minors introduced in 2024. The child’s case was the first of its kind.
Earlier this month, a Dutch review committee found that the case was “handled well,” although some doctors involved disagreed with the decision.
Eijk said this shows that “many people in Western society prefer death to a life with disabilities.”
“Today’s culture is less able to cope with suffering and disabilities. This is most clearly reflected in the tendency of most people today to regard perfect appearance as the ideal. Even when there are hardly any visible imperfections, many still resort to plastic surgery, even though there is actually no need for it,” he said.
Eijk also said that there were other ways of relieving suffering and that in some cases it is licit to suppress consciousness even if it eventually leads to death.
“If, despite the use of painkillers and other measures to reduce distressing symptoms to a tolerable level, it may be permissible to suppress consciousness by administering sedatives, to the extent necessary to make the symptoms tolerable. It may sometimes be necessary to suppress consciousness completely,” he said.
“In that case, the patient will no longer take in food or water, so that they will die after some time. Death is not, however, the intention of the act, but a side effect, which can be justified because no other means of treating the symptoms are available,” Eijk explained.
The full interview between Crux Now and Eijk is below.
This interview has been edited for length.
Crux Now: Why do you think some people see death as preferable to a life with disabilities?
Eijk: I think that many people in Western society prefer death to a life with disabilities. Until the 1960s, most people were much better able to cope with suffering, adversity, and also illness and disability than is the case today. Today’s culture is less able to cope with suffering and disabilities.
This is most clearly reflected in the tendency of most people today to regard perfect appearance as the ideal. Even when there are hardly any visible imperfections, many still resort to plastic surgery, even though there is actually no need for it. Within this trend, people find it extremely difficult to accept illness and disability, particularly when no treatment is available.
Furthermore, respect for the inviolable dignity of human life has been eroded in recent decades. Consequently, in the face of illness and disability, the decision to end one’s life is often made, because people no longer wish to be confronted with such conditions.
Why is the Netherlands one of only three countries that allow euthanasia for minors?
The Dutch Euthanasia Act stipulates that the lives of people suffering from hopeless and unbearable suffering may be ended under certain conditions, provided they choose to do so of their own free will. The Euthanasia Act therefore applies from the age of 12.
From the age of 18, individuals decide for themselves whether euthanasia should be carried out on them. Between the ages of 16 and 18, the decision is made by the young person in question, but their parents must be consulted.
Between the ages of 12 and 16, it is the parents who make the decision regarding the termination of life, but the young person in question must be consulted.
In addition, there is a regulation in the Netherlands for late induced abortion, that is to say, abortion from the point at which the foetus is viable outside the womb (this is assumed to be the case from 24 weeks’ gestation). This regulation also provides for the termination of life of newborns up to the age of one year.
There was no legislation governing euthanasia for children aged between one and twelve years. Paediatricians felt that, in the case of some children suffering from severe, untreatable illnesses, they should be able to carry out euthanasia without running the risk of legal prosecution. They therefore urged politicians to introduce legislation to this effect.
As a result, an official regulation for euthanasia for children aged between one and twelve was introduced in 2024. Children aged between one and twelve cannot be deemed capable of deciding of their own free will that their lives should be ended.
In their case, therefore, the physician and the parents must have reached the conclusion that there is no medical treatment that can cure the illness or alleviate the suffering, and that the latter is only possible by ending the child’s life. They prefer to do so in consultation with the child, if possible.
However, it is stipulated that life-ending measures must not be carried out if the child expresses a wish to continue living.
What does a case like this reveal about a culture’s underlying philosophy?
Since the 1960s, when prosperity made it possible to live independently of others, the culture has become individualistic and, over the decades, even hyper-individualistic. The ethical ideal of this culture is the autonomy of the individual.
Initially, this autonomy meant that an individual should not be prevented from doing as they pleased, unless it caused harm to others. Gradually, the ideal shifted to the extent that autonomy also came to mean being whatever one wished to be – man, woman, binary, or, through gender reassignment procedures, belonging as closely as possible to the opposite sex.
This autonomy also came to mean that the individual had the right, under certain conditions, to have their life ended through euthanasia.
Furthermore, a dualistic view of humanity prevails in today’s culture. Consciousness is regarded as the true human person: the centre within the brain where the capacity for thought, the ability to make autonomous decisions and the capacity to form human relationships with others are located.
The body, in which human beings do not differ from the animal kingdom, is seen as something secondary, as a means by which the human person – that is, consciousness – expresses itself. If a person comes to the conviction that the body, and thus physical life, has lost its value, they might choose to relinquish it and bring their life to an end.
Objectively speaking, however, a human being is not merely his body, nor is he merely his soul, but both soul and body. The body is an essential part of the human person. The termination of his body is therefore a fundamental violation of his inherent dignity.
Supporters of euthanasia would likely say that the child in this case was suffering unbearably, and therefore ending his life was more merciful. Why does the Church teach that this line of thinking is dangerous?
The word ‘merciful’ is often used nowadays to justify ethically questionable actions. However, is it merciful to violate the fundamental dignity of the human person by ending their life?
What is truly merciful is providing adequate care, in this case in the form of palliative care. If standard forms of palliative care prove insufficient to reduce suffering to a tolerable level, palliative sedation may offer a solution.
If, despite the use of painkillers and other measures to reduce distressing symptoms to a tolerable level, it may be permissible to suppress consciousness by administering sedatives, to the extent necessary to make the symptoms tolerable. It may sometimes be necessary to suppress consciousness completely.
In that case, the patient will no longer take in food or water, so that they will die after some time. Death is not, however, the intention of the act, but a side effect, which can be justified because no other means of treating the symptoms are available.
What concrete steps can the Church take to reverse the advance of euthanasia?
The Church must continue to proclaim the fundamental dignity of life to which all human beings, without exception, are entitled from conception to natural death. This means that, according to the natural moral law, the life of an innocent human being is inviolable. On this basis, acts such as abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide are, in essence, morally wrong.
Furthermore, the Church must continue to emphasize the importance of adequate palliative care. Palliative care, including palliative sedation, renders euthanasia unnecessary.
It is also important that the Church continues to proclaim the Christian spirituality of suffering, something which is generally done too little. In our suffering, as John Paul II says, we can discover a calling to follow Christ in his suffering in a special way.
We then carry our cross together with Jesus. In union with Jesus in his suffering and on his cross, we can draw on a special grace and strength to bear our suffering. In fact, it is then Jesus who bears our cross for us.
Why do you think the Church lost the debate on issues such as euthanasia and abortion in the Western world? Do you have hope that the culture can be won back?
As I said in my answer to the second question, since the 1960s a hyper-individualistic culture has emerged, with the autonomy of the individual as its ethical ideal. This culture is not open to a morality shared by a community. The Church is, in essence, a community of believers, founded by Christ.
In its message, the Church stands for a morality shared by all people. The hyper-individualist, however, is not open to such a shared moral conviction.
Can a Christian culture be re-established, even in the West? Over the last five or six years or so, we have seen – particularly in France, but also in the Netherlands and England – an annually increasing number of young people asking to join the Church.
There are also young Catholics who, although baptized as children, have received no further religious upbringing, and who are discovering their Catholic identity. And then decide to live according to it. They realize how empty today’s culture is.
For this culture offers no criteria for what is true or false, or morally good or evil. That is why they set out in search of the truth. They discover Christ as the truth incarnate and his Church as the teacher of the truth on TikTok and other social media.
These young believers are generally inclined to embrace the Church’s teaching in its entirety, including with regard to respect for human life. This is an encouraging phenomenon.
Does this undo the current culture? No, but it does sow the seeds for what Pope Benedict XVI calls a ‘creative minority’. One day, when the current hyper-individualistic culture collapses under the weight of its own emptiness, this minority may contribute to the emergence of a new Christian culture.