27 May 2026 The Netherlands and the Rapid Descent into the Pro-Death Abyss

Part 10 in the 11-Part Series “Is Any Life Unworthy of Living?“

As we have seen throughout this series, “survival of the fittest” ideas and eugenics have historically shaped the modern global movements promoting assisted suicide and euthanasia.

There is little doubt that the pro-death movement has made significant inroads, and has especially affected people with medical issues and other disabilities. We have gone from assisted suicide and euthanasia for very few people, for very few reasons, to — in some places — assisted suicide and euthanasia for even the slightest discomfort.

Let’s examine how the slippery slope in law and policy has accelerated to make death more desirable than other less lethal interventions. We’ll look at two exemplars that illustrate how far down the trajectory we are.

In Part 10, we’ll look at the Netherlands. In Part 11, Canada.

As noted in Part 8, the Netherlands legalized assisted suicide and euthanasia in 2002, allowing for what was called “due care.” This policy stipulated the conditions under which assisted suicide and euthanasia could happen:

• The request for death had to be voluntary.
• The patient had to be 12 years or older.
• The patient had to be experiencing unbearable suffering without likelihood of improving.
• The patient had to be lucid and in a sound state of mind.
• The patient had to be informed.
• There were no possible medical alternatives.
• A second doctor had to agree to the killing.
• The condition did not have to be terminal and could be a chronic condition.
• Advanced directives (e.g., living wills) could be written specify medical killing if the patient suffered from dementia.

As it turned out, these so-called “ironclad” guardrails were merely a charade. In short order, the policies expanded. For example, soon the “unbearable suffering” criterion — initially limited to medical conditions — expanded to include emotional and psychological conditions. Furthermore, no longer did any patient need to be terminally ill, and patients could specify in their advance directives that they be euthanized if they developed dementia. This chipped away at the specification that medicalized killing could only be carried out on the patient was in a sound state of mind.

And things got even worse. As assisted suicide and euthanasia became more mainstream and socially acceptable, the pro-death activists made it even easier to die: Mobile euthanasia teams have been created to serve patients whose doctors refuse to kill them or if the patient can’t get to a medical facility to die.

These developments profoundly changed how the public perceived medicalized killing. The emphasis on incurable suffering played a central part in the pro-death push. However, “incurable suffering” is defined by the doctors, many of them enthusiastic proponents of assisted suicide and euthanasia.

Again — as in Nazi Germany — the all-powerful doctor makes the life-or-death decision, and then deliberately kills the patient.

Significant problems exist in this scenario.

First, defining suffering is a subjective assessment. What is suffering for one patient may not be suffering for another. There is no objective definition.

Second, there are thousands of patients with a terminal illness who survive beyond the usual six-month window, living many more months and even years.

Third, a patient’s autonomy to decide to be killed may be influenced by other very powerful factors; they may feel coerced into the decision or they may be convinced by others that death is the only viable option.

Add to this mix a medical profession largely enthusiastic about dispatching patients, and the result is bleak for society’s most fragile, who should be treated with dignity and respect and who should receive medical interventions and support that doesn’t end their lives.

Assisted suicide and euthanasia now account for nearly 6% of all deaths in the Netherlands.

Mark P. Mostert, Ph.D., is senior researcher for Able Americans, a project of the National Center for Public Policy Research. This is part 10 of the 11-part series “Is Any Life Unworthy of Living?”  Those wanting to be notified of future installments in the series should subscribe to the Able Americans email list.