I'm not sure I agree with what you are asserting.
There is the idea of "negative rights". These are rights that don't require the actions of a third party in order to be satisfied. For example, the right to not be assaulted only requires that other people not assault you. And the right to ownership of private property only requires that other people not take your property.
On the other hand a "positive right" can not be satisfied without active participation of someone else and if that right is to be guaranteed it may require that someone else be forced to do something. For example, the right to an education requires that schools, teachers, books, and other materials be provided.
The conceptual problem with positive rights is that they can only be guaranteed by infringing on someone else's negative rights. For example, the right to an education requires the forceable collection of taxes in order to fund the education system or perhaps the forceable assignment of careers to ensure enough teachers and administrators. Most people are willing to find a middle ground but that only goes so far as can be seen when people complain about high taxes or wasteful government spending.
The difficulty with your position is that it creates a situation where someone might have to be forced to kill someone despite their wishes. Let's presume that the law has been adjusted to permit someone to assist in your suicide without putting themselves in jeopardy of being prosecuted for murder (and relaxing the law like this has its own dangers). You still need to locate a person who is willing to help you. What if you don't know any such person? What if everyone you ask says that they don't want to participate? Can you assert your right and demand that someone be forced to assist you? Since you are asserting there is a "right to die" it only follows that your desire for assistance can't be denied, someone must force someone else to assist you.
The way out of this conundrum, in my opinion, is to realize that there is no such "right to die".