Bereavement leave in the event of euthanasia: will it be possible to change one’s mind?
In Belgium, workers are entitled to special leave for certain family events, civil obligations or legal proceedings. Bereavement leave, the duration of which depends on the relationship to the deceased, is one such form of leave. In February 2026, a bill proposed by the MR aimed at ‘making the bereavement leave period more flexible in cases of scheduled euthanasia’ was tabled in the Chamber. In practical terms, its authors wish to amend the regulations to “enable close family members to plan ahead by being able to take their special leave from the moment the date of euthanasia is scheduled”.
Under Belgian law, bereavement leave entitles employees to up to 10 days’ paid leave, starting on the day of a relative’s death. If, prior to the death, an employee wishes to take leave to be with a relative who is dying, they must apply for leave on compelling grounds. Such leave is, in principle, unpaid.
In this context, the possibility of taking paid leave before the death would create inequality between employees whose loved one dies by euthanasia and those whose loved one dies of natural causes. In the latter case, employees are only entitled to paid leave (special leave, the duration of which varies according to the degree of kinship with the deceased relative) after the death.
Furthermore, the fact that a relative has taken leave in advance in anticipation of euthanasia could constitute, for the person who has requested euthanasia, a pressure that is certainly minimal but nonetheless real to actually go through with the euthanasia. Indeed, only euthanasia that has actually taken place would justify this leave planned before death (whereas in the case of a natural death, leave is only possible once the person has died). The patient’s consent, already weakened by suffering, could be further compromised in these circumstances (as is the case with planning an organ donation following euthanasia). The validity of consent is, however, a central criterion of the 2002 law on euthanasia.
In its opinion, the Council of State suggests that the drafters of the text revise the wording to include situations where the person dies before euthanasia takes place and cases where euthanasia is ultimately not carried out. The text as it stands does indeed provide for an exception where ‘death results from a scheduled euthanasia’. According to the Council of State, this wording is too narrow because it makes the right to leave dependent on a fact that will only be known after the event, insofar as the death must actually result from the euthanasia. However, the stated aim of the drafters is to allow relatives to take their leave as soon as euthanasia is scheduled. The amendment proposed by the Council of State would cover workers who have already taken their special leave, even if the event for which they took that leave does not ultimately result in euthanasia.
Even if the leave is not forfeited in the event that euthanasia is not ultimately carried out, the fact remains that the patient’s knowledge that their loved ones have taken leave in anticipation of the euthanasia they have planned constitutes in itself a form of pressure – however implicit – not to go back on their decision to undergo euthanasia.
