The key word here is innocent. It is reasonable to kill someone or protect others by self defense. It is reasonable to protect your house and house from invaders with deadly power. It is reasonable to kill someone by retaliation against the serious crime they committed.
It is unreasonable to kill those who have never deserved to die; only a few very special actions are horrible requiring such a result.
People were killed in war, self-defense and the death penalty. All murders are wrong, but not all murders are murder. Therefore, euthanasia is only because it is killing and is not wrong. The overall problem is whether it is reasonable killing or not. The burden of proof is in those who say "This particular murder is reasonable." If deliberate murder is done in the self-defense context, it is convincing to prove that the killing is correct, to declare a reasonable war or death penalty for criminals who have guarded others and are convicted You must quote Biblical evidence. Otherwise it must be regarded as murder, which is always morally wrong.
Murder is to kill people. This is a general term for moral neutrality. In the case of SDF, death, war, murder may be considered reasonable (some people). If there is no intention, this is a coincidence, if it is planned and malicious murder, if there is no explicit or implied malice, it is a massacre. Suicide is voluntary and intentional murder of yourself. In some cultures, suicide is morally acceptable and even glorious. Many of Greek and Roman early philosophers believed that suicide was the death of glory (obvious exceptions were Hippocrates, Plato, Aristotle). Hindu customs (the widow is thrown at the funeral ceremony of the deceased), the hunkeric behavior in Japan, and the Inuit's "get out of the ice" habit (when the elderly voluntarily freezes) This is their family I think that it is a burden of) is also considered an honorable death