It is meaningful to give people right to do something only if they are competent, and when they can benefit from it as they wish to.

Euthanasia is a difficult question to decide and that is why very few jurisdictions recognise it. However to give that right to decide to a child or teenager is going too far. The law in general does not recognise the legal competency of a person under 18 years. A life and death issue is fraught with emotions and it should not fall to a child to decide. If at all it is to be adopted there should be some safeguards - obviously the consent of parents and more than one medical opinion subject to a court order.

If it is decided in parliament then they might have some ground which is not known to us. Its an ethical issue, especially if a child is in severe incurable pain with incurable disease. In our law, there is no age limit for giving evidence as a witness in court of law as long as he understand the question asked to him. Similarly in this case also, there should also be one condition that the child who can show capability of understanding should only be included for their right to choose euthanasia

First in in the United States, at this time euthanasia is illegal in most of the states. However, in states where it is legal children as young as 16 might be able to request euthanasia if they have become "emancipated". This is a legal process whereby someone as young as 16 is considered a legal adult, can enter into contracts, and is no longer the responsibility of their parents or guardians. I do not know if any state has this combination of laws. However, I can see how the law might move in that direction  and allow emancipated children of the age of 16 and over to request euthanasia. The process would probably take until they were 18 anyway and so become moot, but it could be started as young as 16.

For younger children it is unlikely they would be given the legal power to make such a decision. They could request it but the ultimate decision would not be theirs, it would be a combination of their guardians, independent medical experts, counselors, and judges. 

In Italy “Life” is considered a not-disposable right, so that euthanasia is forbidden (and who practice it is charged of murder, even with the consideration of victim’ consent circumstance), unless the patient is in an irreversible vegetative state and only after a specific judicial authorization based on undoubtable scientific evidence. In this framework, it’s very difficult to imagine the possibility for a child to give its consent to euthanasia, if he can’t even do many juridical acts because considered not able to understand their importance and to make proper decisions (even in mere property issues). It’s my opinion that, according to current regulations, minors have right to deny their consent to euthanasia, but not to decide positively about it: an interesting train of thought can be to analyse the Parental Guardianship in that perspective, and I agree with the opinion that in case of success of that proposal there will be surely some safeguard.

Los niños sufren dolor de igual forma que los adultos, la cuestion está en si son conscientes del alcance de sus acciones al solicitar la eutanasia. Hasta cierto punto no lo son, por eso la mayoria de las legislaciones no permiten a los menores de edad realizar actos juridicos. A esa edad pueden  saber la intensidad del dolor que sienten pero no creo que puedan discernir si es mayor el dolor que sus ganas de vivir, como tampoco creo que entiendan la gravedad de su situacion como para poder decididir uan cuestion tan importante como lo es su derecho a la vida o no.

here, in Iran, euthanasia is totally forbidden because of religious considerations, and the person who aids and abets in commitment of euthanasia, no difference he is doctor or not, will charged of murder. 

but minors euthanasia is different. children in all legal systems considered incompetent, not only for this act, but also for many ordinary things like selling, buying, or marriage. and of course, these  limits are for protecting them. we can not let them decide for the most important question that may raise in their life: does the life worth living?

permitting children to ask for euthanasia has many dreadful consequences. some parents who can not afford the treatment costs, or just want to get rid of him/her, may convince the child to do this, but in my opinion, it's unfair. children have no precise idea of good and evil, and all the ways that adults may abuse their minority and incompetence

euthanasia is acceptable for adults, because it lets them to die in their desired way, and respect their autonomy and dignity, but for children, it's too dangerous.

I do not consider that children are competent to make such capital decision regardless to their eventual emancipation. It is one thing to enter into contract and quite another to decide to die. Different grades of competencies are required in those issues. Therefore, my opinion is that children should not have right to request euthanasia. Instead of conferring them with such right we should provide them with appropriate care.

Generally, children [minors] suffer from legal incompetence. In some jurisdictions though, the law recognizes the concept of “mature minor”, “emancipated minor”, “age of discernment” and specific acts of minors that can be given legal effects. The right to request euthanasia is not one of them.

Although children have “the capacity and, indeed, the right to make important decisions about health care”, parents or guardians, court-appointed or otherwise, still cannot be removed from the equation regarding healthcare or end-of-life decisions of children. The State can sometimes intervene in behalf of children even in the presence of their parents or guardians. As ward of the State [doctrine of parens patriae], children in fact are not “alone” and subordinate to every decision of their parents or guardians. Gleaned from several case laws the State interests that may limit a [minor’s] right to refuse medical treatment or right to request euthanasia includes preserving life, preventing suicide, and safeguarding the integrity of the medical profession. That being said, it would be illogical and contrary to the State’s interest to recognize a right of a child to request euthanasia.

On one hand, it can be argued that there is really no distinction between euthanasia, refusal of life-sustaining treatment and suicide. Yet, the medical profession and even the State seemingly always attempt to draw a bright line between these major healthcare decisions of competent patients.

I guess the answer should be twofold, devided by CAN & SHOULD.

First you should answer the question, whether children actually have the capability – CAN – decide on euthanisia, as in grasp the consequences and the full meaning of their sickness, pain and death. That of course depends on the intellectual capacity, the age of the child, and their cultural and religious background. Only if they have the capability to see all the consequence so, you actually can ask the question, whether can be morally and legally allowed to – SHALL/SHOULD – decide either way. 

euthanasia is forbidden by law and chariaa in moslem countries as well as suicide. it is indeed considered by some scholars as suicide. the extent to which it is practised is impossible to ascertain though some people think it is in rare cases; the family would decide and proceed discretely in the interest and for love of the child whom it can bear no more to see him suffer intolerably. so the matter is not so much about law but about how people perceive euthanasia and feel love. humman nature is so complicated law cannot apprehend it or regulate it in the whole.

you may find the following case interesting:

CA 506/88 Shefer v. State of Israel:

http://versa.cardozo.yu.edu/sites/default/files/upload/opinions/Shefer%20v.%20State%20of%20Israel.pdf

Thank you. It was the Northern Territory 1996 Act

Of course. You are right. Thank you

Уважаемый Рафаэль!!! В России эвтаназия запрещена в принципе, независимо от возраста больного.  Основу правового регулирования составляет Федеральный закон "Об охране здоровья населения". Однако, совершение преступления из-за сострадания к потерпевшему в уголовном праве России является обстоятельством, смягчающим наказание. Однако, как показывают социологические и криминологические исследования отношение российского общества двояко - с одной стороны, негуманно продлевать страдания неизлечимо больного человека в особенности, ребенка; но в другой стороны нет никаких гарантий от злоупотреблений со стороны медицинского персонала. Проблема трансплантации органов детей - это очень сложный вопрос в российском праве. Однако, по моему мнению отечественное право"топчется" на месте лишая многих нуждающихся возможности сохранения или хотя бы продления жизни. Если Вам нужны какие -нибудь дополнительные материалы ответьте - попытаюсь найти.