I wasn't writing precisely, just trying to point to the "good" lurking in the background of the "unrelated" etymological root. Within ideal monotheism, there is no good apart from God. The goodness of the good is its movement toward the divine, but somehow it's also joined to the infant being taught (teaching itself) not to touch the flame, and the dog being taught not to pee on the carpet.
Interestingly, to me, the words "god" and "good" are thought not to be related etymologically, even though the old English root for "good" is "god," and though there may have been a time when the same word was used for both at least in some forms. Even better, the precise derivation of the word "god" is disputed, though the best guess seems to be that it goes back to an ancient Persian word for "invoke, implore." It's hard for me to see what one would be seek though such invocation other than some stamp of the good, but that could also be because the idea of the Good is an irreducible philosophical category and presumption - making it the "one, unique, and eternal" philosophical category and presumption. So the relationship between "god" and "good" in English - parallel and interdependent and yet separate or separately derivable is similar to the relationship between religion and ethics.
Except "a good death" has been a major part if not the foundation of diverse ethical and religious philosophies.
The only alternative might be to view dying the right way as not rare, but inevitable (karma): every death a dying "in the right way," while leaving open the question of how much ability we have to affect what that right way turns out to be.