But it is. If the state does not legislate to allow it or to not prosecute those who assist with it, then the individual has no freedom of choice of personal end of life matters.
Unless the state allows for unrestricted assistance of suicide (which would be a moral issue), it is choosing who is and who is not eligible for assisted suicide, which is way outside of the role of government. A prohibition on assisted suicide may not be perfect, but it is the only way to avoid the discrimination and deification of government of restricted assisted suicide and the obvious moral and practical issues of unrestricted assisted suicide.
So you’re saying that because the state would regulate in law who is entitled to receive assisted suicide, no one should, because everyone can’t access it and if everyone could access it, that would be morally wrong? That’s like opposing something not because you oppose it, but because you oppose the opposite of it, which is a different issue entirely.
The state sanctions doctors to provide medical care; treatments to extend life or combat things that may shorten your life. What is
right for you is not universal; you can’t ask for absolutely anything within that system. Yet I doubt you would argue that not providing unfettered access to treatment inhibits personal freedom, therefore no one should have any healthcare at all.
Assisted suicide would be an extension of end of life care which is provided by doctors who are already arbiters of whether or not someone should receive assistance and in what capacity. As they are with all aspects of medical care. A fit and healthy 20 something who demands an anti-cancer drug isn’t going to get it unless he is diagnosed and it is of the opinion that this treatment would help. Likewise a fit and healthy 20 something who demands to end his life isn’t going to get assistance to do it if he is fit and healthy (physically and psychologically) If he is not, then as is presently the case, he would receive psychiatric care.