Scott Adams strikes me as being really bad at actually using rationality despite the name. I think the commenter PhantomPhlyer was spot on:

Is it just me, or did Scott's conclusion not really conclude anything? It just said that, according to Scott's poll report (I haven't seen any poll, and consider one on emotional a topic such as this depends on how the question is worded), that 'most' Californians would favor death by doctor.

Was that the point of this whole tedious exercise? To repeat the same assumption he made at the start of this debate?

I also think this tome concentrated too much on 'dignity' and not enough on 'death at the hands of another.' Scott appeared to brush over the idea that you're asking a doctor to violate his oath and kill another human being. I think that's at the crux of the debate.

This whole agonizing journey, to me, is based on the following truism: he who frames the debate controls the outcome. But maybe I missed something in his conclusion.