Devils advocate, personal experience, personal interpretation, and understanding of current literature:
1) Reflects current consensus in the field. Some may argue as 'coddling'(and consensus and approach may change) but is in general regarded as the safe empathetic thing to do, slightly analogous to epilepsy considerations.
'Posturing' could be considered an uncharitable assumption here... "What is the agenda behind any posturing?"
2.a) Presumably pointed out to show that it can indeed affect anyone. B) likely reflects a common thought cycle of his (guilt at feeling this way due to position etc.; this becomes part of the self hate cycle). C) to precisely acknowledge that this article doesn't intend to undermine other precarious or disadvantaged positions).
"> My life is, by every objective measurement, very very good.
Clearly not if you're suffering."
This is precisely the point he was making, I believe(...?)
3) is important to those readers that still cannot bear to even imagine burdening their loved one with a similar admission. At least one of this article's readers wept imagining the value, freedom and weightlessness that may come from finally saying this, and by extension realising the inevitability of that statement vs a more unsatisfactory ending. (I.e it was valuable to one reader , at least).
4. Seems appropriate to ask for funding to reduce net negative emotion in the world.
I would assume that your downvotes are due to your answer showing
appearing unnecessarily hostile and uncharitable to the article, which is probably being interpreted on face value and being written with good, empathetic intention (not a hidden agenda).