In his statement, "Suicide is suicide" the author equates all suicides. All suicides are not the same. Some suicides are justified. A person may see the rest of her or his life as full of misery. If that is an accurate assessment suicide is a logical response.

There is not discordance. People understand there is a difference. Just the same as most people would say that murder is wrong, but still except that police and the armed forces kill people.

What you have presented here Paul is, I believe, an entirely irrefutable logic based case that can only be argued against by entirely errant personal opinion?

Rather than the known facts, that where euthanasia is lawful, like Belgium and Canada, it has included many initially unintended consequences, such as extending it as a universal right to comparatively young people!

There is a difference between people and dogs.

In the first instance the medical care for our pets can all too often be more expensive than that of a child, which says plenty about us as a society!

One recalls the case of a Gold Coast Grandmother who had just recovered from successful cancer surgery.

But as the postmortem revealed had some adhesions, reasonably treated by further remedial surgery and better post op rehab?

Who was assisted to commit needless suicide, because the cancer she feared, had as it turns out, been successfully removed. Incidentally the patent drama queen, was the centre of attention she craved, just as long as she bravely and inexorably moved on toward her stated objective and killed herself!

This is not the hero's way out just the craven coward's!

Euthanasia is not a suitable treatment for fear or aged depression or lost hope or the loneliness of the aged; or faced with the prospect of having to give up an addiction?

Or a morbid love affair with death?
Rhrosty.

"This is quite normal, but it is a very unsound basis for public policy. Suicide is suicide. Regardless of the method, it is a violence against oneself. It is also the ultimate expression of hopelessness, often in a fog of depression where nothing is truly as it seems. Despite what some would say and despite some portrayals in the media, it is never truly a rational act."

It can be. For example if a spy is captured and the enemy intend to torture him to find out who he's working with, suicide is a rational way of preventing them from doing so.

If we're only looking at the cases where it appears hopeless, we should distinguish between those that are genuinely hopeless and those that merely appear to be that way because of the "fog of depression". You have failed to do so. But if you want to convincingly argue that suicide prevention must include preventing ALL suicides, it's a distinction you must make.

People's identity has been destroyed by the regressives over the last 50 years. Boys are encouraged to find out if they are girls and teenagers encouraged to sleep with as many partners as their hormones dictate. Numerous top themselves when a partner is unfaithful. Spending millions of dollars on bandaids is the only answers from those who hold the idiotic secular dogmas that has led tho these issues.

The author is obsessed with doing the impossible - to "save lives".

If "life" means the breath in the body, then all bodies will cease breathing sooner or later anyway and nothing whatsoever can change that, so not even one life can be saved.
And if life is correctly understood to be our inherent quality, then killing one's body makes no difference and preventing it still would not save even a single life.

So what CAN change then, which the author must be hoping for? Well there is one such thing: his organisation could receive more tax-payer funds, both making the author wealthier and allowing him to harass more people who chose to shed away their human bodies. Perhaps with the unavailability of Nembutal they would, thanks to the author, have to endure a more painful and violent death.