Pressure towards voluntary euthanasia legislation is bound to continue and grow.
This issue has gained ground throughout the Western world and particularly in this country.
It resonates notably with both liberal and libertarian New Zealand.
Introducing a form of euthanasia would also, in the eyes of many, mark further social progress.
It follows relatively recent anti-smacking legislation, gay marriage and a general move away from social conservatism.
Proponents argue history is on its side and it will be adopted as abortion and homosexual law reform, contraception availability and no fault divorce were in latter decades of last century.
Like most of those other issues - at least at the time of change - the matter is highly divisive, although many will not fall into predictable camps on euthanasia.
There are those from traditional church backgrounds likely to sustain a principled stand around what they see as the utter sanctity of life.
And there are those who will frame the debate around human rights, in this case the right to die.
Public support for euthanasia has increased.
The case of Lecretia Seales, who died of brain cancer, added real momentum.
The Wellington lawyer asked the High Court to give her doctor the right to help her die. Not long after learning her attempt was unsuccessful, she died, the decision saying it was up to Parliament to decide the matter not the courts.
Ms Seales' husband, Matt Vikers, persisted with the cause, and a petition was launched.
It asked the Health Select Committee to investigate attitudes to medically assisted dying for those with terminal illnesses.
The committee is now doing that.
It called for public submissions, with these closing on Monday.
This brings the matter before Parliament again, although not yet in the form of a Bill.
Supporters are able to point to specific cases where early death foreshortened pain and were emphatically within the wishes of those concerned.
The circumstances are such that, unless someone has strong fundamental theological or philosophical objections, it is hard to disagree with the likes of Ms Seales' predicament.
There are individual instances where tightly defined medically assisted euthanasia seems to be fair, reasonable and, most importantly, humane.
Nonetheless, it is dangerous to base law on a sample of worthy instances.
The wider picture must be examined, and there will be other cases not so commendable, no matter how the law is framed.
Human beings are capable of astonishing selflessness but also deep selfishness, of great compassion but also staggering cruelty.
We are also masters of self-justification, and family relations and financial interests are fraught.
Will base motives come into play?
Will elderly feel they are a burden.
Will the right to die become a duty to die?
Thus, we must be extremely wary.
How much trust can we have in whatever system is set up given the participants are fallible?
There is, indeed, a danger of an expanding wedge towards more permissive attitudes and deaths that might not be wholly justified or humane.
Protective standards can slip.
We focus in this individualistic age on individual cases.
But families and society as a whole can be enriched by the love and pain of caring for dying loved ones.
While it is accompanied by grief and agony, a natural death with proper palliative care can be a special time for all involved.
Voluntary euthanasia has made its way into law in the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Belgium and a handful of American states.
Just how that is working out in practice depends very much on the point of view of whoever is examining the situation.
New Zealand does not have to be at the forefront of this harrowing issue and can wait at least a little longer before making a commitment to voluntary euthanasia.
