It’s not that simple. Granting a right to die shifts a heavy burden of responsibility onto the patient. The current situation in most countries is that euthanasia is not legal. That means the patient’s family had a sense of obligation to support a terminal patient as best they can for as long as they can (and in geographies with universal healthcare “family” extends to a much broader definition of society). Granting the patient the right to die also puts them into a place where they have to make considerations about how much of a burden they are to those around them. The status quo allows a terminally ill patient to be selfish without guilt (well, modest amounts of guilt) because the alternative is illegal. It comes at the cost of undue suffering for many at the end. The alternative shifts this and risks people who’d have otherwise been able to eek out some continued enjoyment from what remains being forced into a thought decision out of a sense of guilt and obligation to not burden those around them.

It’s a complicated issue with lots of unsatisfying trade-offs. I’m personally conflicted about which path is better. It’s definitely not as simple as obvious as to which way is better that people want to imply.