Liana Graham: Children are being euthanized in Europe. Is Canada next?

One of the aspects of the Canadian MAID regime that most sets it apart from the rest of the world is the view that doctors have a duty to inform patients when they become eligible to die. Photo by Matteo Benegiamo /Getty Images

Article content

A child in the Netherlands, whose sex has not been revealed, was recently euthanized at the behest of their parents and doctors. Normally, such a case would warrant arrests, trials and convictions. But one crucial fact changed what should have been a straightforward matter of law enforcement: the child in question was severely disabled — not brain dead, not dying — disabled. One would think that such a practice would be condemned by democracies worldwide, especially those that employ highfalutin jargon about human rights and dignity in common parlance.

Article content

Article content

Instead, a ridiculous amount of mental gymnastics is being employed to justify this child’s death. Consider the report from the Committee for Late Termination of Pregnancy and Termination of Life in Newborns and Children Aged 1 to 12 Years. Yes, that is seriously its name. The committee concluded that there was “no reasonable alternative solution to reduce or eliminate the child’s suffering other than to end the child’s life.”

Article content

Article content

Article content

And what was the situation, exactly? After a very premature birth at 26 weeks, the child developed severe complications including cerebral palsy and epilepsy, leading to severe intellectual and motor disabilities. Doctors judged the situation as hopeless and irreversible. One sentence from the report is particularly revealing: the child “the child would be dependent on support with all activities of daily living for the rest of their life.”

Article content

Of course, plenty of disabled adults require similar daily assistance. And under Canada’s capacious euthanasia laws, those adults would qualify for assisted death. That is, if they consent. After all, autonomy is a cardinal moral principle of modern healthcare and, apparently, strictly required by Canada’s MAID system… right?

Article content

Article content

In theory. But recent developments shed doubt on the idea that consent is an inviolable rule in euthanasia deliberations, both presently and in the future.

Article content

Article content

The death of Bridgitte Stegmann is one such story. Her family alleges that Stegmann’s doctors obscured the reality of MAID by avoiding words like “death” or “dying” while assessing her willingness to die. Further, they claim that the nurse who initiated Stegmann’s death failed to obtain a final confirmation of consent before proceeding.

Article content

And in 2022, the Quebec College of physicians suggested expanding MAID eligibility for “severely ill” infants up to the age of one.

Article content

Infants cannot consent to being killed. Nor can so-called “mature minors.” Such cases are therefore difficult to reconcile with the claim that euthanasia is simply about personal choice. But there is an alternative explanation that makes better sense of these disturbing developments: the movement to legalize euthanasia was never about freedom.

Article content

If MAID were based on bodily autonomy alone, the logical response to all forms of suicide would be assistance, not prevention. And while Canada’s MAID system has applied that principle in some respects — 93 per cent of people assessed for MAID were approved for the procedure in 2024 — public concern over Canada’s lax safeguards is growing, prompting the Liberal government to announce plans to table legislation this fall to halt the expansion of MAID for mental illness as a sole condition, but to expand the program by allowing advance requests.