ARTICLE

Shocking Study Shows Majority Of Belgian Doctors Would Support Infanticide

News Image By Jonathon Van Maren/Bridgehead.ca October 05, 2020
Share this article:

On August 2, a new study titled "Healthcare professionals' attitudes towards termination of pregnancy at viable stage" was released, analyzing the willingness of physicians to commit late-term abortions or even infanticide. The study, funded by the Research Foundation Flanders and Ghent University, found that 89.1% of medical professionals and 93.6% of physicians indicated that infanticide is acceptable in certain circumstances. 

The findings are based on the results of an anonymous survey sent to 117 Belgian medical professionals who worked in Neonatal Intensive Care in Flanders, Belgium. There were 92 responses on a range of questions, but the most disturbing finding is that a near-total majority of physicians backed killing newborn infants with disabilities by lethal injection. From the study:


Of all healthcare professionals, 89.1% (93.6% of physicians) agree that in the event of a serious (non-lethal) neonatal condition, administering drugs with the explicit intention to end neonatal life is acceptable. About the same proportion (87.9%) agrees that Belgian law should be changed to make this possible.

These numbers are genuinely staggering. Nearly all physicians--at least in the Flanders area of Belgium--support not just late-term abortion, which is controversial even amongst those who consider themselves "pro-choice," but actual infanticide. 

Further to that, they believe infanticide should be an option when the baby's condition is "non-lethal"--in short, utilized as eugenics in cases where they believe the baby's life is worthless. Doctors and medical professionals would like Belgium to decriminalize killing newborn babies who are disabled or have other conditions. According to the study's conclusion: 


Healthcare professionals practicing late TOP in Flanders, Belgium have a high degree of tolerance towards late TOP [termination of pregnancy], irrespective of sociodemographic factors, and are demanding legislative change regarding active life‐ending in the fetal and neonatal periods. Further research should explore the correlation of attitudes to late TOP with actual medical decisions taken in daily clinical practice.

Additionally, a full 100% of doctors supported late-term abortion in the case of "lethal fetal conditions" and 95.6% supported late-term abortion when the condition of the baby was "serious." If the baby is entirely healthy, the numbers drop significantly: 19.8% of respondents supported late-term abortion for "maternal psychological problems" and only 13.2% supported late-term abortion in the case of "maternal socio-economic problems." 

Additionally, the study found that "behavioral intentions indicate that even in situations with an unclear diagnosis and unpredictable prognosis, 85.6% of professionals would still consider late TOP." Despite the rhetoric of abortion activists who claim that late-term abortion virtually never happens and that when it does, the child is nearly always has a fatal condition, a super-majority of medical professionals support both late-term abortion and infanticide for conditions in which the child does not have a fatal condition.

Unfortunately, a society that accepts abortion must inevitably support some forms of infanticide, as well. 


After all, there is no material difference between killing a child in the womb and killing a child shortly after he or she has exited the womb--especially not to the child. In fact, infanticide is often much less messy when compared to going in blind with tools to dismember a child in the womb - one can simply give them an injection in the heart once they have exited the womb, and death will be nearly immediate. 

And if there's nothing morally wrong with killing a baby on one side of the birth canal, what is so wrong about killing that same baby on the other side? That is a question that abortion supporters have long struggled to answer--and now, it seems, many physicians are simply following their ideology to its logical conclusions. 

Originally published at The Bridgehead - reposted with permission.




Other News

November 04, 2026The Elections Are Over - But The Real Problem Was Never On The Ballot

Elections can change who governs a nation. They can change laws, policies, and the direction of government. But they cannot, by themselves...

November 04, 2026The Death Of Authentic Worship? AI-Generated Christian Music Tops The Charts

Welcome to a new era of Christian music, where the person singing about heaven may never have experienced grief, never attended church, ne...

November 04, 2026The Very Real "Grid Down" Scenario From Cyberattacks

Perhaps we should pay attention when GovAI tells us that a single AI cyberattack "could cut off power to 100 million people and cost the e...

November 04, 2026The Jesus-Plus Deception Spreading Through The Church

Can you worship other gods and still follow Jesus? A megachurch pastor's shocking remarks expose a dangerous deception spreading through C...

November 03, 2026The Road To The False Prophet May Be Paved With Promises Of Peace

Pope Leo's latest interfaith gathering celebrates peace and religious unity. But could such movements eventually pave the way for the Fals...

November 03, 2026While America Watches Iran, China Prepares For The War That Could Cripple Us

China is preparing for a potential Pacific war as a dangerous 2027 deadline approaches. But what if America is already confronting Iran wh...

November 03, 2026Biblical Truth Has Political Consequences

A Pew Research Center survey released earlier this year found that 66% of Americans believe churches and other houses of worship should st...

Get Breaking News