While I of course don't think this should be the deciding factor, and I wouldn't write the following paragraph outside the context of your comment... Isn't it

While I of course don't think this should be the deciding factor, and I wouldn't write the following paragraph outside the context of your comment... Isn't it possible that letting suicidal people kill themselves might actually save more in "wasted" economic output trying to save people who are perhaps beyond saving (therapists could spend more time helping non-suicidal people which could make them more productive, or less therapists needed so they retrain; maybe state aided suicide leads to more deaths and therefore more time spent grieving by friends and family, or maybe it would work out pretty much the same number of deaths but years earlier, potentially with those years otherwise eating lots of economic output out of their family & friends who are both emotionally distracted and likely spending time trying to help; etc) than gained by the possibility of some economic output from the saved person, which might happen or maybe a decade of homelessness later they die before working another hour. I'm not convinced that politicians are against allowing suicide because they know how the numbers stack up and there's a solid economic case saying to force people to live. They're doing it, rightly or wrongly, either because they believe it's the right way for society to act, or because they think that's what the voters they need believe. But maybe you're right that, if those beliefs started to fade, the economics would be worked out, show that my thinking above is wrong and that it is most profitable to ban suicide, and it would be a motivation for some people to cynically push people back towards those beliefs? Or maybe you think that motivation already is secretly driving propaganda or political lobbying or similar?