>Keep in mind that mental health can be a huge factor in someone being suicidal. In other words, they're not thinking straight, so it's fair to help them during that time.

Using the mental health angle to deny someone their most basic right is fraught with issues. Mental health is often defined in terms of conforming to the standard behavior under various measures. We define mentally unhealthy as sufficiently deviant behavior and use that as a rationale for restricting that behavior. This is a thinly veiled attempt at forcing conformity under a scientific premise. Unless one can be demonstrated to be out of touch with reality, we have no right to physically intervene with someone exercising their right to self-determination. If you believe this right has caveats, then you simply never believed in it to begin with.

How do you "demonstrate one is out of touch reality"?

That's just as difficult to define. My argument is that there's no black or white answer.

I think you can demonstrate it in obvious cases: "what color is the sky"? "Potato". Barring cases such as these we would err on the side of allowing one to exercise their right to self-determination. Using the nebulous "depressed" definition as a justification is absurd. Sure, do everything you can to convince them that suicide isn't their only option. But ultimately you must accept that it is not your decision nor the state's.

A whole lot of people who were prevented by law enforcement and mental health staff from killing themselves would disagree with you.

If someone is truly determined to end their life no human can stop them, only delay them for a little while.

>If someone is truly determined to end their life no human can stop them

Tell that to all the Bradley Mannings of the world.

There it is.