> I'm actually not sure I agree there exists a pain severe enough to require the release of death.

I think we’ll fundamentally disagree as a result of this. Like, based on each of our personal fundamental beliefs, our own ideal social rules make sense, but will not make sense to the other.

To me, if you believe a uniquely unfortunate hypothetical person should be forced by society (to the best of society’s abilities) to endure the worst torture imaginable for their entire life just because it won’t be “their ultimate cause of death”…

…that you probably are worried about something other than that persons life. Perhaps you are more concerned with their soul than their life? This is valid and given certain beliefs in afterlife/heaven/god it is the overwhelmingly more important outcome to consider! Nearly any infinite Earthly pain would be worth saving a soul from eternal suffering away from Heaven.

But I will say that I’d also like not to live in a Theocracy, where government rules are decided based on the sincere beliefs of the dominant religion. Some people do though! And it may be that’s another point where we’ll permanently be unable to see eye-to-eye despite our best efforts and intentions.

I do think it might be important to consider, acknowledge, and announce where the foundational beliefs come from which are likely to lead to radically different conclusions, even given best intentions from all involved parties.

If you are not religious, or your feelings on this topic don’t stem from your religion, I apologize for my assumptions!

To answer all your specific questions based on my personal value system:

> Should we be allowed to kill ourselves over a shattered bone? A breakup? A hangover? A bad test score?

Yes to all. But again the one ending their own life has a duty to do it in the most considerate and responsible way possible, not harming others in the process to the best of their ability.

In all these cases, it wouldn’t be the one event that causes the suicide, rather that event would be the straw that broke the camels back. A lifetime of pain and trauma would precede it.

> We haven't even considered that there may be alternatives also able to reduce suffering like painkillers (or, in the context of this thread, mental health treatment).

Given the reality that people will commit suicide whenever they want anyways, if we accept that fact as normal, it will lead society to understand that it is society’s responsibility to advertise these options and make them easily available. We should make them automatic first-line options in the minds of those who may be suffering, so that they choose those options over suicide. When society denies that suicide (or worse) is a default option for people who are suffering, we lose some of our incentive to implement the best possible remedies.

> Should EMTs abide by this wish in that moment? Should the patients prognosis influence this decision? These questions are hard for me even ignoring the affect on others. Should it affect anything if the patient has kids or is pregnant?

My value system does not lead to a conclusion where an EMT has to do anything to assist a person in their quest to end their own life. The EMT would never ever have to kill anyone who begged for death — I’m not even sure my value system would allow them to outside of a highly regulated and mildly Byzantine euthanasia process.

In general, parents have a right to suicide as well (although the state does not have to assist). What is wrong with our society that so many people feel that suicide is their best option?

Can we focus on fixing THAT?

Instead of worrying whether the person who commits suicide is selfish VS. the people of society are selfish who insist that sufferers should forever persist in their suffering for the benefit of society?

I believe if we accept in our hearts that suicide as an inalienable right, we’ll start building a better society as we accept the conclusions of the belief.