"There are cases where an individual's choice to end it all early would be a net loss for their immediate community, and there are cases where it would be a net

"There are cases where an individual's choice to end it all early would be a net loss for their immediate community, and there are cases where it would be a net loss for the wider community and the state. At some point that net loss must overrule the individual's autonomy." I'm presuming these are situations where a person has a terminal illness or something where it's a matter of time until they are disabled / not mobile / in great pain and so forth. What right does anyone else have to demand that a person continue living against their will in those scenarios? Why does a person have to wait for life to be unbearable before they can opt out? My father died due to dementia. When he was of sound mind, he was very, very clear that he'd prefer to be dead than diminished that way. Unfortunately his condition crept up on him and he didn't live where assisted suicide was an option anyway. I'm convinced that caring for him actually killed his wife before her time, by contributing to her stress and so forth. (She died of a heart attack about 9 months before he did, despite being a decade+ younger.) We don't give human beings the same dignity we give pets who are clearly dying because we have misguided ideas about longevity being more important than quality.