In his opening he says, "it’s obvious why there’s great resistance to letting anyone decide when someone else’s life should end," but later he says, "When it’s a loved one or cherished friend, however, the misery, suffering, pain and despair are required to continue, no matter how excruciating, even if he or she is pleading and praying to draw that final breath." That's not really letting someone decide when someone else's life should end as it is enabling a decision the suffering person has already made themselves.
Implied in his argument is an okay for euthanasia when the person is so far gone there is no quality of life (and he's certainly discouraging the exhortations to loved ones to "hang on" despite intense suffering which there is no reason to expect to cease before death) but he doesn't actually make a clear statement. He uses Barbaro (Kentucky Derby) as an exemplar, but we make decisions on behalf of animals because they can't indicate a decision themselves; with humans there is so much more complexity.
(P.S. I think it's sick that there's an embedded link to "AP video: Death of Barbaro" and suspect Joe F. would not approve.)