How does it make the discussion of doctor-assisted suicide any more productive to analogize it to execution, which is isn't? How will I think more clearly about the end of my father's or my mother's life, both of which involved their exercise of choice in dying, by considering them in terms established by Timothy McVeigh? ?

If there is a real reason for this analytical turn, it can't be based on a series of rhetorical questions. If there isn't a better reason than juxtaposition of extremes with family realities, the premise should go.

Nor is it clear why discussions of choice in dying should be seen as discussion about state-assisted or state-directed killing. Obviously there are many conditions under which palliative care gives way to conscious withdrawal of treatment that shades into passive encouragement of family compliance with dying relatives' wishes all of which neither puts the state (nor would contemplate putting the state) in the role of decision-maker or executioner.

Which is why there isn't any inconsistency between wanting for myself what my parents in different ways had, namely the right to choose when in the process of dissolution to die, and opposing completely the existence of capital punishment.

I think therefore that the best route to improvement is to write about the right to die, not the right to state-assisted suicide, and to leave the murderers out of it, unless there is additional good cause shown.

Why aren't these just links in the text? You're writing for the web, so why not make your writing as easy as possible for people to read there?