Infant Euthanasia is an Unacceptable Practice

by Nora Stewart Wylie

—

In 2005, the Netherlands made the historic decision to legalize assisted death for terminally ill infants under the age of one. Dutch law specifies that, should a baby be born with a severe medical condition that is irremediable and causes “unbearable” suffering, parents may have the right to terminate their child’s life. While many other countries in the world have legalized assisted dying for adults, the Netherlands was the first to legalize it for infants since Nazi Germany. 

This decision made by the Dutch remains incredibly controversial, sparking concerns about ableism and the child’s inability to consent. However, the law seems unlikely to change within the immediate future. In fact, whispers of adopting this practice have begun in a new nation, as the Quebec College of Physicians pushes for infant euthanasia in Canada, an idea a large portion of the nation is highly skeptical about. 

The push for infant euthanasia began in 2022, six years after medical assistance in dying (otherwise known as MAID) was officially legalized in Canada in 2016. That year, Dr. Louis Roy spoke on behalf of the Quebec College of Physicians, stating that their board would like to explore legalizing assisted death for “babies from zero to one years of age who are born with severe deformations, very grave and severe syndromes (...) whose life expectancy and level of suffering are such that it would make sense to ensure that they do not suffer given that their possibility of surviving is basically nil.” 

This proposal met with immediate backlash. Canadians were already concerned about the broadening allowances for assisted death, and infant euthanasia felt like a quick descent from allowing terminally ill consenting adults autonomy over their death to prematurely murdering nonconsenting children. 

Despite the critique, however, the Quebec College of Physicians remains steadfast in its belief. It has an increasing number of supporters pushing for assisted dying laws to expand to those who cannot consent to their own killing. 

This past August, the board was quoted reiterating their stance, saying, “The [Quebec College of Physicians] reiterates that medical assistance in dying may be an appropriate treatment for babies suffering from extreme pain that cannot be relieved and who have severe malformations or serious polysymptomatic syndromes that destroy any prospect of survival.” 

In 2015, when the Supreme Court of Canada declared that laws against medical assistance in dying were invalid and that MAID should be legal under at least certain circumstances, a wide variety of concerns were expressed by adversaries of the practice. The most prominent concern was the “slippery slope” issue, which has been used worldwide to argue against assisted suicide: the idea that any legalization of assisted death would quickly get out of hand, leading to the deaths of vulnerable people such as minors, the impoverished, the mentally ill, etc. 

The Supreme Court of Canada quickly shut down those concerns, stating assisted death was only for competent, consenting adults who are suffering intolerably from irremediable medical conditions (although what qualifies as “irremediable” was left vague). They declared, “We [the Supreme Court of Canada] make no pronouncement on other situations where physician-assisted dying may be sought.” This, of course, was short-lived. 

As of  2021, Canada has removed the terminally ill requirement from MAID, and extended the meaning of suffering to include “mental suffering from your illness, disease, disability or state of decline that cannot be relieved under conditions that you consider acceptable [emphasis in original].” Assisted death qualifications are currently vague, allowing virtually any adult to petition for their own death. In February 2024, legislation was passed to offer MAID to individuals suffering only from mental illnesses, which will officially go into effect on March 17th, 2027.  

The Supreme Court still claims that vulnerable people must be protected, but also states, “vulnerability can be assessed on an individual basis.” This means no one is objectively vulnerable, and every safeguard on assisted death can be interpreted subjectively. 

When MAID was legalized, the Supreme Court had to make safeguards subjective, for one simple reason: MAID establishes a general presumption that death is a better option than suffering. MAID was legalized as a solution to pain, physical or otherwise, and it stands as a governmental sanction in favour of death. When the government starts proposing death as a relief option for the hurting, the hurting start asking for relief. The same reasoning can be used to justify the Quebec College of Physicians' proposition: if assisted death is but a relief for suffering, suffering infants need that relief as well.  

The issue with this idea of euthanizing infants comes down to the simplicity of why assisted death was legalized in the first place: personal autonomy. The Supreme Court of Canada legalized MAID because, in their own words, “The prohibition [of assisted death] denies people in this situation the right to make decisions concerning their bodily integrity and medical care and thus trenches on their liberty.” 

This claim absolutely cannot apply to infants, individuals who cannot consent or express concern about the integrity of their own bodies. There is no denying that a child being born terminally ill is a horrific tragedy. Many parents genuinely feel that the suffering their baby is facing is too much and that the child would prefer their suffering to end, but that child cannot consent to that. There is no way to know what an infant would want in this scenario.

Establishing a precedent under which non-consenting people are assumed to prefer death is extraordinarily dangerous. When someone cannot express their desire to die and they are killed anyway, it can only be called murder. Assisted death cannot exist when it comes to infants because infants cannot be “assisted” in anything; things are simply done for them. The intentional death of an infant by medical practitioners equates to killing, a direct human rights violation. 

Canada’s increasingly lax MAID regulations are concerning, to say the least. The number of people lost to MAID in Canada has been rising since the practice was legalized in 2016: over 15,000 people were killed in 2023, and over 60,000 have been killed since 2016. To believe this practice does not victimize certain vulnerable people is naive; children cannot be allowed to join them. 

Terminally ill children have a right to life, too; they have a right to healthcare and safety under all circumstances. Society has been convinced that a shortened life is equivalent to immediate death, but that is not the truth. Life is not about how long it lasts or how much can be accomplished while it lasts; life is about life. It is about the very act of living, of knowing existence, of knowing love, of knowing life. 

There is nothing more tragic than a child’s life being shortened, but that is not an excuse to shorten it further; that is not a reason to end a life that still has time left. Infant euthanasia does not provide autonomy or refuge; it is the destruction of human existence. Terminally ill infants have as much of a right to life as anyone else, and that right must be protected by legislation. If a child has one minute to live, let them have that one minute, and let it be a minute where they know only love.