Thanks for the reply, because its helps flesh out where I personally stand.

Do you believe this right to self-determination extends to non-terminally ill individuals?

Personally, yes. For me, "inverse right to life" (love the phrase, BTW; removes the negatively charged aspect and unbiases discussion) is part of the right to self-determination. If the inverse right-to-life is afforded to the terminally-ill (which, really, its not yet in most places), I think it must also be given to non-terminally ill, rather than have a different standard.

In my opinion, at some point the question is boiled down to the same exact thing. Quality of life.

I think you're saying that quality of life is the outcome measure we should employ, rather than quantity? - if so, I personally agree with you. However, if a person decides that their number of days is more important than how they spend them, well, that's them exercising their right to self-determination.

How many years is an individual compelled to exist before we extend to them the right of self-determination?

Ugh, isn't this the million dollar question? - I feel that, before we can even begin to answer it, we also have to ask - is this "right" to self-determination truly a right? We seem to employ so many caveats - you can't be a minor, you can't have a psych diagnosis, you have to be terminally ill, etc., that it seems more arbitrarily doled out than fundamentally present. We as society have placed a value judgement on those choosing to exercise the inverse right-to-life; which we then use to justify superseding the right to self-determination/inverse right to die.

If we're going to have a "right," it shouldn't have to be earned. It shouldn't be applied differently to different people.