One of the strongest arguments for euthanasia is the moral argument. That arguement states that it is more "moral" to let someone die than to live in a certain state. It is simply more "moral" let grandma pass then to keep her alive in severe pain for a few more weeks or months. There certainly are moral arguements both ways. Many families have faced these moral decisions about a loved one and there certainly is no easy answer.
Under the Blount Amendment that decision is now placed in the hands of "stakeholders" which could mean anybody remotely associated with in the coverage chain. First we know that the true "purchaser" of the insurance policy is the employee. They are the only person who actually provides the item of value, their labor or service. The employer either explicitly or implicitly deducts the cost from their compensation and pools and forwards it to the insurer. Since the employer, insurer, or provider are all considered 'stakeholders' any person in that chain could deny coverage as long as they could wrap some type of 'moral' reasoning behind their decision they could deny coverage. Under Blount an insurer or employer could simly state they were not going to provide anything other than palative care to the dying and deny all coverage.