...I didn't say there was.

It's almost like my post was an intentionally facetious misreading of the discussion.

That choice would be harmful though. Maybe suffering is as complicated as morality. Maybe the complications of human suffering is why morality is complicated.

Why is it harmful if it leads to less suffering?

By literally causing harm.

You understand that when utilitarians talk about the least amount of harm they are basically referring to suffering vs happiness?

Because human suffering isn't as simple as you're making it out to be?

And mostly because it's his choice if he wants to end his own suffering.

To him dying might out weigh the suffering of life.

Also, it's just a very lazy way to end somebody's suffering that doesn't actually stop the event that causes the suffering.

You never considered that he may be happier enduring his suffering than he is with giving up.

Or maybe you're trying to straw man me with that because it makes it easier for you to argue against that frame even though you basically lack the understanding of how nuanced and complicated human suffering is.

Yes it's his choice. I agree. That's why I don't think it's simply down to what "harms or helps."

That's just an ad hoc rationalization for morality, not the driving force. Morality is largely instinctual. You just feel it's wrong to kill an innocent man against his will regardless of any calculation regarding suffering or harm.