Barring some far future medical scifi stuff becoming real, that wouldn't be my ideal. It would mean we stopped striving for anything so completely that zero people went too far and accidentally offed themselves and that's a stagnant and depressing culture to live in.

Also barring some far future medical scifi stuff, it would also mean nobody lived a long and healthy life and went to bed when they were very old and had something give out overnight and just didn't wake up. That also seems like a pretty sad place to live, because that would seem like the ideal to me. If I'm not going to die miscalculating a win suit run and hitting a mountain, or discovering a new exotic form of matter (that accidentally vaporizes me), then I want to live a long life and randomly go to bed one night to not wake up, ideally post 85 years old, or even better post 100 years old. Having a reason to ask the doctor to kill me seems really sad (while also being understandably necessary in certain cases, i.e. I'm not waiting for the cancer to incapacitate me in utter agony for very long before I tap out on my above ideal).

Lots of people get unlucky and die. That doesn't mean they should not take the risk in the first place.

No, it should always be up to individual choice. There is no “ideal” because you can’t substitute your preferences for those of others.

To hit the 100% number you would have to prematurely kill many people that die peacefully but unexpectedly, and then forcibly kill many people who want to die naturally.

So people die suddenly without precondition, some die by accident, some die by murder, some die peacefully from age.

No. Don't screw with nature, it doesn't end well.

You're getting downvotes but what you say follows logically, we all suffer to some extent, we all die at some point. The distinction between maid eligible cases and ineligible cases seems arbitrary to me.