[3] Parties that consented to the killing included Hitler's office, the parents, and the Reich Committee for the Scientific Registration of Serious and Congenitally Based Illnesses.
[3][4] Bente Hindriks, born in 2001 at Groningen University Medical Center in the Netherlands, was immediately diagnosed at birth with the rare genetic disorder, Hallopeau-Siemens syndrome.
[1] Four years after Bente Hindriks' death, Dr. Verhagen began campaigning for policy change that called for permitting infant euthanasia under specifically strict guidelines.
Called "Dr. Death"[1] and "a second Hitler"[1] by some, he continued along with his hope for a "nationwide protocol that allows each pediatrician this delicate question with due care, knowing he followed the criteria,"[1] to end his patients' lives simply out of compassion.
As it stood then, euthanasia could only be applied to citizens over eighteen years of age or, in rare accounts, a category of individuals called "emancipated minors.
Finally, it requires that multiple physicians and legal representatives sign-off on the mental capacity of the patient, reinforcing that the minor is competent of their condition and decision to die.
"[1] Others, such as Joseph Fletcher, founder of situational ethics and a euthanasia proponent, proposed that infanticide be permitted in cases of severe birth defects.
Fletcher says that unlike the sort of infanticide perpetrated by very disturbed people, in such cases child euthanasia could be considered humane; a logical and acceptable extension of abortion.
"[7] Dr. Alan Jotkowitz, professor of medicine at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, argues strongly against the Groningen Protocol on the basis that idea of a "life not worth living" does not exist.
[15] Dr. Douglas S. Diekema, most known for his role in the Ashley Treatment, argues that in cases where parents act against the best interests of their child, that the state should have ability to intervene.
[2] Luc Bovens, professor of philosophy at the London School of Economics, explains the three fields of thought opposing this amendment to the 2002 Euthanasia Act.
[17] Proponents of the new law argue this amendment helps avoid discrimination, clarifies legal matters and improves consistency in medical practice and decision-making.
"[18] Furthermore, proponents believe the extension will clarify the legality of the matter for physicians who are treating terminally ill minors, resulting in less unlawful behavior and more consistency in medical decision-making.
[2] A major challenge for physicians tasked with the medical decision-making of babies born very premature or severely disabled with neurological damage and poor quality of life for the future presents another side to the bioethics topic of child euthanasia.
Silberberg and Gallo's analysis showed the current sentiment of physicians with respect to infant euthanasia apply some variation of therapeutic activism, yet the large majority of those same doctors will withdraw life-preserving treatments when no advancements are made.
A recent psychological study in Belgium showed that people who disapprove the legalization of child euthanasia tend to be religious, have low flexibility in existential issues, endorse collectivistic morality (values of loyalty and purity), and/or express ingroup-oriented prosocial inclinations.
The child's doctor must confirm that they are "in a hopeless medical situation of constant and unbearable suffering that cannot be eased and which will cause death in the short term."
[27] The Nuffield Council on Bioethics launched an enquiry in 2006 into critical care in fetal and neonatal medicine, looking at the ethical, social and legal issues which may arise when making decisions surrounding treating extremely premature babies.
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists recommended that a public debate be started around the options of "non-resuscitation, withdrawal of treatment decisions, the best interests test and active euthanasia" for "the sickest of newborns".
The college stated in this submission that having these options would save some families from years of emotional and financial suffering; it might also reduce the number of late abortions, "as some parents would be more confident about continuing a pregnancy and taking a risk on outcome".
[28] In response to this proposal, Pieter Sauer, a senior paediatrician in the Netherlands, argued that British neonatologists already perform "mercy killings" and should be allowed to do so openly.
[32] Characterized by various physical abnormalities, surgeon Harry J. Haiselden advised the Bollinger parents to forgo the surgery that could have saved the baby's life.
[11] One year later, the Reagan administration orchestrated new regulation creating the "Baby Doe Squads" and toll-free hotline to answer any complaint concerning potential abuse of a disabled infant.