“Death with Dignity” is a tool the law uses to get the elderly and terminally ill to respect the rights of others whether they want to or not. I associate it with the executive authority of the state’s ruler, and the ruler’s use of death in conformity with the law. These assisted suicide laws thus may be justified on the grounds that being terminally ill counts as a hindrance to a hindrance to freedom. Basically what I hear you saying is the “small people” are a hindrance to your freedoms and you need state rulers to make laws protecting the government and doctors from lawsuits when they assist in their deaths. Kind of like if the mafia threatens to destroy your property if you fail to pay protection money, this threat will count as coercive; but if the just, well-regulated state threatens to confiscate your property unless you pay taxes, this threat is arguably not coercive. Thus, giving the state with any pro-suicide physicians at their side the right to end a life you feel has become a hindrance to your freedom. Just curious when you start advocating for the forced sterilization and prohibition of marriages for certain races.
To me “in my opinion” your story was a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward their personal cause or position, the systematic propagation of a doctrine of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause. It reminded me of political speaches, what I call “Nursed and Rehursted” ideologies.