Of course making the process of death better would encourage more people to end their suffering (like with euthanasia), but it's still a process of loss, abandonment, that few people can tolerate.
I beg to disagree on this part. Euthanasia (good death) doesn't encourage suicide, it gives option or choice not just to live or die but also to live better and die better. If euthanasia is being encouraged (by medics or authorities or worse by peers, for example) then the euthanasia will lose all its' meaning to a bad death, a murder; instead of it just "being there" as personal securities option that can be taken into account anytime one wishes.
Yes, there's only few people nowadays tolerate euthanasia, not because it's an abandonment, but because only few people understand it, even less people have access to it. Euthanasia is the better process available rather than sudden loss and tragic abandonment as consequences from current norms/laws implemented by society regarding the sufferers of the end of life.
As one philosopher said (pardon, I forgot who), death shouldn't be seen a loss, but rather a state of "given back". When we can accept death as inseparable part of life, we're giving back, not losing. Stating life and death as a win or lose game as we are in a competition, is the failure to understand which is being imposed by capitalism; But what if we refuse not to play that game because the rules are unjust and only protect the corrupt rulers? What if we get out a burning house?
Yes, I'm a pro voluntary euthanasia if that means the same in pro mortalism, not pro-mortalism in bad way like death through murder or prolonging terminal illness against one's personal will.
Overall this is a good reading. Thanks for sharing.