About the Netherlands ...

I followed the link in Steve Bainbridge's posting this morning--the link to the Hewitt piece.  According to a passage Hewitt quotes, this is what the the Groningen Protocol does:

Under the Groningen protocol, if doctors at the hospital think a child is suffering unbearably from a terminal condition, they have the authority to end the child's life. The protocol is likely to be used primarily for newborns, but it covers any child up to age 12.

The hospital, beyond confirming the protocol in general terms, refused to discuss its details.

"It is for very sad cases," said a hospital spokesman, who declined to be identified. "After years of discussions, we made our own protocol to cover the small number of infants born with such severe disabilities that doctors can see they have extreme pain and no hope for life. Our estimate is that it will not be used but 10 to 15 times a year."

Wouldn't the Doctrine of Double Effect permit parents to authorize the administration of a sedative (e.g., morphine) to their child in order to relieve the child's unbearable pain--even, if necessary to relieve the pain, to the point where the child's respiratory system is depressed and the child dies . . . so long as the parents do not intend the death of the child but only the relief of the child's unbearable pain?  Of course, the proportionality test (which is the second part of the DDE) would not be met if the child's condition were not terminal.  But if the child's condition is terminal--if the child will die within the week--then wouldn't the proportionality test be met?

Am I missing something?  I would appreciate any comments you might have about this situation.  Let's think this through together before we start talking about Nazi doctors (even if, after we think it through, we want to start talking about Nazi doctors).

Michael P.