I won't comment on intent, as that is something far too personal to interpret and irrelevant to the argument anyways. Whatever motivation they may have, it is strictly their technique I observe and compare

Likewise, the outcome of these modern procedures is also irrelevant to the argument. There are certainly successes and failures, but no one survives forever, and the fact is people die in a hospital. Lots of people.

It is wonderful that some lives are extended, some ailments alleviated, some illnesses healed. Also irrelevant.

Were it not for the anesthetic, the experiences your body went through while you were being "treated" would've been unbearable. How long can a person tolerate having their chest split open, multiple cardiac electrocutions, needle stitchings, and so on? Or a splenectomy, or a caesarian, or an amputation, or intra-cardio chemotherapy, without being rendered unconscious, paralyzed, sedated, numbed, and having all memory of the event erased from their minds, assuming they survive?

That is my comparison, that is what I've seen. Euthanasia is perhaps comparatively more humane. Having lived enough of a life to accept the inevitable, I've already directed a DNR in my file. I don't need to go through that experience. I don't want to see anyone else go through what I've seen either. They may be unconscious, they may not remember it, but after what I've seen, what happens on that cold steel table in that sterile, unfamiliar room is not something I will ever look forward to, regardless of the outcome.

YMMV