
A Dutch teenager, aged between 16 and 18, underwent euthanasia in 2023, just four and a half years after receiving a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder.
According to the annual report of the Regional Euthanasia Review Committees of the Netherlands, the young man described his existence as “joyless,” with persistent anxiety, mood problems, sensory hypersensitivity, and difficulties fitting into the world.
Each day was “an ordeal he had to overcome,” to the point that in his final weeks he remained bedridden most of the time. The doctor who evaluated the case stated he had “no doubt” about his mental capacity to make the decision and concluded that there was no prospect of improvement.
This case, revealed in the 2024-2025 review report and widely covered by international media, illustrates the expansion of euthanasia in the Netherlands beyond terminal physical illnesses.
Dutch legislation, a pioneer since 2002, allows assisted dying for “unbearable” suffering with no prospect of improvement, including psychiatric conditions.
For minors aged 16 to 17, only parental consultation is required, not explicit consent. In 2023, 138 cases of euthanasia for psychiatric reasons were recorded, rising to 219 in 2024, with a notable increase among young people: between 2020 and 2024, cases in those under 30 years of age increased from 5 to 30.
The teenager was not a case of “low-functioning” autism. Sources describe him as having abilities that allowed him some autonomy, but he faced challenges typical of the spectrum: sensory overload, cognitive rigidity, social difficulties, and isolation.
Instead of intensifying therapeutic support, educational adaptations, behavioral interventions, or long-term social integration—options that have proven to improve the quality of life for many high-functioning autistic individuals—the medical system endorsed euthanasia as a definitive solution. The official report emphasizes that the suffering was considered “untreatable.”
Experts have documented that between 2012 and 2021 at least 39 people with autism and/or intellectual disability received euthanasia in the Netherlands, frequently motivated by loneliness, lack of resilience, mental rigidity and hypersensitivity (factors directly linked to autism in many cases).
Cases like that of Zoraya ter Beek, a 29-year-old woman with autism, depression, and personality disorder who opted for euthanasia in 2024, show how the diagnosis of autism is intertwined with psychological suffering to justify assisted death.
The Netherlands recorded more than 10,000 euthanasia cases in 2025, exceeding 6% of all deaths. While the majority were due to serious physical illnesses in the elderly, the increase in psychiatric requests among young people is alarming.
Critics argue that offering death as “treatment” for people with neurodevelopmental disorders sends the message that certain lives are less worthy of being lived and supported. Instead of investing more in specialized therapies, adapted housing, supported employment, and inclusive communities, the state legitimizes the elimination of the patient.
The case of the autistic teenager reinforces concerns that euthanasia for mental suffering, when applied to minors or young adults recently diagnosed, crosses a dangerous line. Four and a half years after his diagnosis, a young man who was still in the prime of his life—a stage in which many autistic individuals learn coping strategies and build a meaningful life with the right support—was approved to receive a lethal injection.
This was not a terminally ill patient with unbearable physical pain, but a human being with a neurodevelopmental disorder that generates real challenges but which, historically, has not been considered incurable in the sense of justifying death.
The Netherlands has progressively normalized euthanasia: from terminal cases to mental suffering, from adults to adolescents, and now with reports of its application in autism.
This logic raises an uncomfortable question: if society does not offer real hope or sufficient resources to those struggling with autism and mental comorbidities, isn’t the State indirectly incentivizing the easiest way out instead of the most humane one?











