Waste.

People about to die should all be helped by anonymous groups to, let's say, moderate, the views of the super rich and their lackeys. If you get my drift.

If we're able to effectively target those people, we should give them what they need to survive (e.g. for depression) or what they need to die (e.g. MAID).

So, I look at this from the opposite point of view, would I want to hire social people for high danger situations? For most situations, the answer is no.

If I need something done right and I'm willing to risk a human life for it, why am I sending someone whose main goal is to die and be happy with that as the achieved goal? I have to spend time and money getting them fit for purpose just to lose that investment because they blew themselves up. Then, I potentially have to deal with a hazardous situation caused by their death, which may cause additional damage and loss of life.

You've already got a lot of replies. Hopefully somebody else hasn't said this: It's unethical because then you've created a societal incentive to create conditions that make the most exploitable of workers.

This would be America's wet dream

We keep suicidal people out of those situations because they increase death tolls.

No, it would also be rather stupid. I want the people that were sent to rescue me make it out alive, ideally with me. Just adding more corpses to a disaster is pointless.

I think suicidal people just don't care. They are suicidal for a reason. And society is the most frequent reason. Why would they want to help those who made their life insufferable?

If you don't want to live, would you be good at rescuing those who do want?

If it's a one way situation like going into a nuclear reactor to stop it from exploding - absolutely yes. But if it requires that suicidal person comes back out like in a mine rescue - not so sure.

While actually being able to help people might give people a reason to live, they might just step inside the door of a burning building, sit down, and wait for smoke inhalation ot take them, in which case, all you're really offering then is a method. So I'd say a full analysis of your plan would actually include EFFECTIVENESS; that is to say, what is the likely result of this action has some bearing.

But, if you're just interested in ethics, the broadly accepted ethic is that people are not allowed to kill themselves OR put themselves in dangerous situation because they want to die. In fact, if your mental health care worker SUSPECTS you of planning to do that, they're supposed to notify the state and the state evaluates you and locks you up against your will. And if the mental health practitioner does not do that and you do unalive yourself, they could lose their license and be sued into the ground by remaining family.

Despite the fact that forced hospitals stays do nothing--and are arguably worse--than other approaches that respect the patient's autonomy; despite the fact that calling the police destroys any trust a client has with a therapist, who is maybe their only person; despite the fact that this pressure makes the population of therapists willing to see suicidal patients much smaller....

So, yeah, there's things to be said about it, but I think your scenario is easily unethical under the current regime.

Yes, but probably not for the reason you're thinking.

It would be unethical because people who don't care about living would not make effective rescuers, they're not trained to handle these situations effectively, and it would decrease the chances of successfully rescuing the person.

No. Not ethical at all!

Life itself is one of the highest ethical values. Even the life of a suicidal person. It has the same value.

By bringing such a person in dangerous situations, it is very likely that this brings her closer to suicidal thoughts and/or opportunities.

Therefore, such situations must be avoided, for these people even more than for "normal", not suicidal people.

I'm kind of surprised in all the discussions I don't see where anybody mentioned recent history in Japan where it wasn't directly asked but a few cultural aspects led to exactly what you're talking about happening. Old people took up working in Fukushima nuclear reactor because they knew the radiation would likely harm them and they wanted to spare the young.

Like a modern day practical Ättenstupa.

Same as usual, only if that person wants to.

There's a large difference between painless euthanasia or instant suicide (e.g. shot in the head) and, say, burning to death or getting buried alive under rubble.