Virtually every "advance" humans have made has been in the interest of fending off the "end of life." Even something so elemental as moving from holes in the ground, to caves, to constructed houses was a sequence of advancements done for protection of various kinds to accomplish fending off the end of lfe. We invented money as a means of economic expediency, a thing (money) that has meaning and/or value onl because we say it does, so why not fritter it away in large sums to fend off the end of life. If you've got it, spend it. Be honest, if someone told you that s/he could extend your life for some amount of money, would you not try to come up with the shekels? So why criticize a person dying of cancer for spending a pile of money for the same purpose. Is there a m oral imperative that declares one MUST leave money and or possessions to his/her spouse, children, or other loved ones? Dying of old age is another thing completely; in that case, someone needs to remind the elderly loved one that one cannot fend off death by worn out organs, clogged arteries, or the inability to extract nutrients from food. Give it up, man. No amount of money can combat that. But as the old bromide goes, "where there is life there is hope." Really?

Skipping everything else and just answering the title question: no, however, with that said, one can make arguments on humanitarian terms. I don't have a definition for what those would be, so that would be the first argument. But god, absolutely not. And, if so, what would be the argument? They're going to go to god so let them go, or the more common, but not necessarily bibly correct that all who somehow being about a death are wrong: except for all the bibly exceptions that are expressly written

The only way that religion can affect this is by its ban on managed death, but that tends to be expensive anyway. If the care centers run by religions overcharge then that is a simple matter of stealing.