Is suicide okay if the problem *isn't* temporary? (please read description)

If somebody wants to kill themselves, let them.

If the quality of life is so low, maybe.

I would kill myself... only when the alternative was worse than death. Burning to death tops regular death. Alzheimers also sucks so probably kill myself in that instance

This is why a number of Countries and some US States have legalized the right for people with terminal medical conditions to end it peacefully and in a controlled fashion.

There is a somewhat different reason why certain military and intelligence people will commit suicide to prevent the release of certain information. Their death is very small compared to the damage from the release of the information to the wrong people.

In the end... the only right many of us have is how we die and for what reason.

It's not a question of whether or not it's permanent or temporary. Suicide is a selfish act which is always preventable.

If you want to die for whatever reason, no-one is stopping you from going to the extreme of killing yourself, but it will negatively affect those who care about you. If you fail to realise that, you lack empathy.

The real issue behind suicide is not that it's "a permanent solution to a temporary problem." There are many things that are permanent solutions to temporary problems.
The issue with suicide, according to natural law, is two-fold. On one hand, the cause of suicide is evil, that being despair. On the other, the effect of suicide is evil, that being death.
Despair is the total loss of hope, which leads to a variety of evils, the ultimate one being suicide. Hope is an inherent good that leads to greater good, and a lack of hope is an inherent evil that leads to greater evil.
No situation is hopeless, and despair is never justified.
The other issue, as I said, is the death caused by the suicide. Death is also evil, and to cause death is evil as well. In suicide, one is causing one's own death, which is an injustice greater even than murder.
Thus, it is never acceptable, under any circumstances for one to commit suicide.

No matter what, someone is always gonna laugh over u killing yourself. So no, no way in hell should u give in

In some countries they allow euthanasia of people who have chronic illnesses or debilitating disabilities whether it's mental, physical or both if they have no quality of life. I think that should always be allowed.

It seems that the more years you put off committing suicide, (upon conception of the idea,) the more you gradually become deranged.

I think suicide for quadruple amputes and the like makes sense if they want to because the quality of life might be so low that death is preferable.

However, I also think for actions like those committed by people in history like Otho it's also resonable and respectable. When you play your shot and lose that badly, at such a cost of life, better not to roll the dice again but instead off yourself.

Also tbf even suicide in the case of those like Cato the Younger seems respectable.

I would recommend reading “man’s search for meaning” by Viktor Frankl, he addresses this, which he calls unavoidable suffering, but how there’s always hope, humanity and purpose in spite and because of it

I want a North Korean boyfriend I will give him a better life than he ever thought was possible

I have to quibble about your third example: the skilled manual worker who loses the use of his hands. That would indeed be traumatic, but it's not a totally hopeless situation. It's highly likely that the welder could, with the sufficient psychological and practical support, make a new life for themselves that was just as rewarding as their old one.

But I agree that your other two hypotheticals are pretty hopeless, and it seems to me that we should all have the right to end our lives if we come to the rational conclusion that our lives have ceased to be rewarding in any way, and there is no realistic prospect of anything ever changing.

The line you cite about suicide being a permanent solution to a temporary problem is indeed trite, and I'm sure it's often used in a judgemental way by people who lack sufficient information to make an accurate assessment of a particular person's motivations. I wouldn't be surprised if some of those who deploy that bromide do so because they've had suicidal feelings themselves, and they desperately cling to the idea that their life _must_ improve.

Still, it has to be said that a large proportion of suicides and attempted suicides are impulsive, and those who survive often find that their life has indeed improved after a time when they were in a very dark place and feeling useless and hopeless. One of the big firearm-related problems in the USA is the fact that easy access to guns makes impulsive suicide attempts far more deadly than they are in other parts of the world. For example, if you really want to kill yourself in Britain, it isn't that complicated to do the actual deed, but it takes forethought and determination to go to a high place and jump off, leap in front of a train, unclip your seatbelt and drive your car into a concrete wall at 120mph or slash both your arms deeply. Picking up a gun, sticking the muzzle in your mouth and pulling the trigger can be done on the spur of the moment and the job done in seconds.

That's a fair enough criticism of that argument. People should use other arguments for discouraging people from suicide.