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

Perhaps OP is saying that in an ideal world no one would die by accident.

That's not an ideal world. That's a fantasy world.

An ideal world is a fantasy world.

There's more than accidental deaths too. For example, surgeries carry risk.

That's still accidental.

If you flip a coin and it lands on heads, that’s not an accident, it’s just chance. You get a risky procedure and die, well that’s chance too.

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.

Not all death involves suffering. Some people just go to bed one night and die quietly in their sleep.

Right but ideally we would be able to prevent that so it never happens unexpectedly and we all only ever go out on our own choice when we're done/ready/whatever

It sounds better to me to just not wake up one day than to know when death is near, but maybe there are some great anti anxiety/depressant drugs to deal with existential doom feelings when that time comes.

You can't, sudden cardiac arrest could happen anytime to anyone.

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

So, life saving medications should be illegal by that logic too?

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

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.

No but that's their point: you can't do this cause life is tragic.

But supposing we were to live in a ideal world, we'd wish it to be so that every death that occurs happened by the wish of the deceased, in the best comfort that can be offered to them.

I think that is a very different point than stated.

They said “ medically assisted deaths should be 100%”, not that everyone should have full control and choice. This is a very different point. The former takes what a personal preference to be a universal value, and supposes that an ideal world would conform the their preference, not just have choice.

They clarified below that this is what they meant for what it's worth.

I'm not sure what position you're ascribing to them, that we should have everyone killed by doctors at birth? I mean that could work if interpretated literally for the stated case, but who in their right mind would believe that?

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).