Except he isn't doing that. He's misrepresenting people's arguments (due to misunderstanding?), tearing his strawman apart, and then "explaining" the poor quality of this argument by declaring that his opponents are lying about their beliefs, and their actual beliefs consist of simple deontological rules.

What bothers me is when they do this and they pretend they’re making a value-free statement about respecting the rights of others. “Oh, well, we’re a liberal democracy and people should be able to do whatever they like with their own bodies, but I’m just worried about people being euthanized against their will, and that would be a violation of consent, and a good liberal democracy like us wouldn’t want to violate consent, nosirree!”

No. You do not care how many people are kept alive without their consent, just like you do not care how many people work McJobs without their consent, or how many people feel pressured into going to social gatherings they don’t want to attend. You care about consent solely when it serves the purpose of your sacred values. You would gladly violate the consent of a billion people on some unrelated issue rather than risk a single consent violation of your own personal pet project.

... and obviously, an arbitrary set of deontological rules is not an argument, so he no longer has to actually disprove it.

I'm starting to think I need to write a larger deconstruction of his post, actually, but I hope you see what I mean. (Thank Azathoth that Yvain is such a clear writer and thinker so I can show this so simply with quotes like this. Although I suppose he wouldn't have as many of us caring what he writes if it wasn't worth reading.)