Is compassionate murder progress? Am I simply not in enough pain to understand the value? Why death, why not simply allow people who wish to die permission to do the best drugs on the planet, feel no pain, and hallucinate all day? Would that not solve the problem without killing? Question after question can be asked about the morality, ethics or wisdom of opening the door to euthanization, but in the end the outcome is the same - death.

We all die. What comes after this life is as much a mystery as the purpose of experiencing it to begin with. Terminating life without knowing either of these two is not just a risk it's insane. For a world hellbent on "scientific fact" and endless sources and citations it's troubling we are confronted with such a magnitudinal shift of social thought in such a short period of time.

In my view, euthanization of people in pain is the most selfish thing a society can do. Killing these people is not compassionate to them it's a relief to society as a whole. The burden of pain is shared by everyone even if the experience is singular. Pain has driven us to solve complex problems that provably increase quality of life and promote positive social welfare. Short-circuiting that social mechanism under the auspices of "compassion" ultimately eliminates a very necessary and functioning aspect of society - helping people who cannot help themselves. Murdering someone is not helping them. It's ending their need for our assistance.

I am on fire and will no doubt die from immolation. You have a gun and can end my suffering in an instant. Would it still be murder? If your golf ball is rolling towards the cup on track for the perfect shot and someone gives it an extra tap for good measure did you cheat? Did they? Were you robbed of "the real thing" in terms of victory?

Life is life specifically because we do not control death. Our lives are our lives because we control our actions in a world we do not. Those who end other peoples lives short are simply playing at god. The fact governments are beginning to open this door should be alarming to everyone who understands what attracts megalomaniacs to power.

We are already subject to psychiatric evaluation to own guns, rear children, perform certain kinds of work, undergo certain procedures or simply handle our own personal freedoms. In the future will this list extend to death? Can the government or a quasi-governmental body tell you how much pain you're in and suggest death as a solution?

In my estimations, the government will use the same pitch Big Tobacco used; "why would we want to kill that which supports us?". The answer to that is; because someone else is supporting the idea more than the people support the government. Which means, as soon as it becomes profitable for governments to use the business of death against their citizens they will. Just like they have for finance, food, healthcare and security.

Dependency on a central authority to determine if life is livable sounds unwise. Basing the livability of life on the pain we experience seems logical. Ending a life is no less an act of murder. We can debate the details and broad strokes with analogies and thought experiments; really "have the conversation". But, in the end, can we stop euthanization from becoming a social norm? If not, then we aren't being compassionate killers we're just being goose-stepped into old school murder.