The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Minors and euthanasia: a systematic review of argument-based ethics literature
Abstract
Euthanasia was first legalised in the Netherlands in 2002, followed by similar legislation in Belgium the same year. Since the beginning, however, only the Netherlands included the possibility for minors older than 12 years to request euthanasia. In 2014, the Belgian Act legalising euthanasia was amended to include requests by minors who possess the capacity of discernment. This amendment sparked great debate, and raised difficult ethical questions about when and how a minor can be deemed competent. We conducted a systematic review of argument-based literature on euthanasia in minors. The search process followed PRISMA guidelines. Thirteen publications were included. The four-principle approach of medical ethics was used to organise the ethical arguments underlying this debate. The justification for allowing euthanasia in minors is buttressed mostly by the principles of beneficence and respect for autonomy. Somewhat paradoxically, both principles are also used in the literature to argue against the extension of legislation to minors. Opponents of euthanasia generally rely on the principle of non-maleficence.Conclusion The present analysis reveals that the debate surrounding euthanasia in minors is at an early stage. In order to allow a more in-depth ethical discussion, we suggest enriching the four-principle approach by including a care-ethics approach. What is Known: • The Netherlands and Belgium are the only two countries in the world with euthanasia legislation making it possible for minors to receive euthanasia. • This legislation provoked great debate globally, with ethical arguments for and against this legislation. What is New: • A systematic description of the ethical concepts and arguments grounding the debate on euthanasia in minors, as reported in the argument-based ethics literature. • A need has been identified to enrich the debate with a care-ethics approach to avoid oversimplifying the ethical decision-making process.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 29 · Cited by 27
Metadata
- Authors
- Cuman, G., & Gastmans, C.
- Affiliations
- KU Leuven (BE)
- Corresponding author
- Cuman, Giulia
- Venue
- European Journal of Pediatrics
- Published
- 2017-06-01
- Volume
- 176
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 837-847
- ISSN
- 0340-6199 (ISSN-L)
- 1432-1076
- OpenAlex
- W2620807568
- Cited by
- 27
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2
- FWCI
- 0.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- European Journal of Pediatrics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Lirias (KU Leuven) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Ethics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative and Oncologic Care
- Keywords
- assisted dying legislation, discernment, four principles of medical ethics, beneficence, respect for autonomy, non-maleficence, care ethics, ethical arguments, Dutch euthanasia law
- MeSH terms
- Belgium, Euthanasia, Humans, Netherlands, Suicide, Assisted, Informed Consent By Minors
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review