[1]: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/medical-assi...
[2]: https://exit.ch/en/englisch/engagement-of-exit/our-end-of-li...
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?
I can think of many possibilities for people to passively and non-economically serve the will of the state in an always-online world, but I don't think it's appropriate to openly speculate about that sort of thing since it is Unknowable. Just knowing it's possible is enough for me :)
The same state that sends its youth off to die in wars? Or that executes them when it so chooses?
Suicides in the US (where assisted suicide is illegal): 45,979 (with 1.2M attempts)
Executions in the US: 17
I'm not asking to imply you've cherry picked numbers, just that giving stats like that (number of actions for a country with no defined time period) is only telling half the story, and even though that half was enough to make your point I think the other half is worth including for the sake of curiosity :)
edit: yes seems to be 2020, search of that suicides number pointed to e.g. https://afsp.org/suicide-statistics/
IMO there's no way this would ever become any sort of common occurrence, because the state would never willingly give up its human capital on that scale.
"Again, when a man in violation of the law harms another (otherwise than in retaliation) voluntarily, he acts unjustly, and a voluntary agent is one who knows both the person he is affecting by his action and the instrument he is using; and he who through anger voluntarily stabs himself does this contrary to the right rule of life, and this the law does not allow; therefore he is acting unjustly. But towards whom? Surely towards the state, not towards himself. For he suffers voluntarily, but no one is voluntarily treated unjustly. This is also the reason why the state punishes; a certain loss of civil rights attaches to the man who destroys himself, on the ground that he is treating the state unjustly."
— Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics Book Ⅴ http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.5.v.html