Edit: Furthermore, your argument also denies the average citizen their right to life by denying their capacity to decide their own quality of life.
You assign the average citizen a capacity of a child.
"""If that proposition ("The average person isn’t capable enough to judge information for themselves") were true..."""
I'm interested in exploring the logical consequences of assuming that point, not arguing the truth of the point.
I've generally heard quality-of-life listed under the inalienable right to pursuit of happiness, not the inalienable right to life, i.e. "What's the point of living if you can't ever be happy". But, yes, let's preserve that one as inalienable too. How do we structure a society to preserve those rights if we assume "The average person isn’t capable enough to judge information for themselves?" What does that do to their ability to both enunciate what makes them happy and make the correct decisions to pursue that which makes them happy successfully?
I'll start: I see nothing in the inalienable right to life incompatible with structuring a society that can maximize quality of life for its citizens who, on average, aren’t capable enough to judge information for themselves.