Giulia Cuman1, Chris Gastmans2. 1. , 35141, Padova, Italy. giulia.cuman@gmail.com. 2. Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 35, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
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.
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.