Résumé : ABSTRACTThe Belgian Euthanasia Act of 2002 (The Act), amended in 2014 to include the Minor Act (The Minor Act), has drawn international criticisms for its liberal laws and practices regarding Euthanasia. This paper is a response to allegations that the liberal laws on Euthanasia has encouraged doctors to adopt a paternalistic 2 approach towards their patients by terminating their lives without their explicit consent, i.e. engaging in Involuntary Euthanasia.3, 4, 5Although in theory, only Voluntary Euthanasia (explicit patient request and therefore consent) is permitted in Belgium 6 the allegations implied that in practice, Involuntary Euthanasia (no explicit patient request and therefore consent is given) is practiced, especially in the Intensive Care Units (ICU) in Belgium.This paper attempted to make distinctions between Terminal Sedation and Euthanasia based on current dominant discourse in Bioethics and argued that it is not Involuntary Euthanasia that is practiced in the ICU but Non-Voluntary Euthanasia or Terminal Sedation (explicit patient request and therefore consent is unavailable) is practiced based on the intent of the doctor. In presenting its arguments, this paper focused specifically on the reports it procured from its qualitative research. Finally, in order to understand if doctors in the ICU are Gods or Monsters, the paper attempted to answer four questions namely:1. Are doctors in Belgium Gods, who help end lives?2. Or are they Monsters, who help end lives?3. Or are they pre-hippocratic doctors, historically called Witch-Doctors, who are“for hire” to either “cure or to kill” with no loyalty to the Hippocratic Oath?4. Or are they mutated witch-doctors pressured to practice Euthanasia in a countrywhere the laws are perhaps fatally flawed?