The Groningen protocol allows for the euthanasia of severely ill newborns with a hopeless prognosis and unbearable suffering. We understand the impetus for such a protocol but have moral and ethical concerns with it. Advocates for euthanasia in adults have relied on the concept of human autonomy, which is lacking in the case of infants. In addition, biases can potentially influence the decision making of both parents and physicians. It is also very difficult to weigh the element of quality of life on the will to live. We feel an important line has been crossed if the international medical community consents to the active euthanasia of severely ill infants and are concerned about the extension of the policy to other at risk groups.
- medical ethics
- spina bifida
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- A case for justified non-voluntary active euthanasia: exploring the ethics of the Groningen Protocol
- Passive euthanasia
- Neonatal euthanasia: moral considerations and criminal liability
- Reporting of euthanasia in medical practice in Flanders, Belgium: cross sectional analysis of reported and unreported cases
- Euthanasia, Ethics and Public Policy. An Argument Against Legislation
- Legal physician-assisted dying in Oregon and the Netherlands: evidence concerning the impact on patients in “vulnerable” groups
- The role of nurses in euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in The Netherlands
- The Groningen Protocol for newborn euthanasia; which way did the slippery slope tilt?
- Euthanasia and other end of life decisions and care provided in final three months of life: nationwide retrospective study in Belgium
- Euthanasia in neonates