I have three bones to pick with these views. Firstly, since self-centredness is subjective (i.e. is it more self-centred to leave your community behind, or assume it will break down after the loss of you?) and amenable to point of view, thus 'good' and 'bad', self-centred or not, can always be argued either way, which in turn makes the moralisation of suicide a futile activity. Secondly, the very moralisation of suicide, usually asserted within the contexts of family, religion or communal culture, dismisses suicide as either a political or philosophical act, perspectives which associate the taking of one's own life with existentialism, the breaking of boundaries, the affirmation of freedom, the ratification of life itself, etc. Thirdly, that moralising suicide is antithetical to the presence of suicide, that suicide simply is, and in many cases sounds much more like an aversion to acceptance, even to life/the present/God, which in an ironic way destabilises the very locus of said moralisation.
Only in academic circles is suicide stripped of its moral associations (psycho-analytic circles too, to an extent, but legalities ensure that suicide is pregnant with an extra-conscious dose of 'whose responsibility is this?'). Given that academia professes objectivity and prioritises evidence in any argument (even in the arts and humanities; we are, after all, creatures of logic), it should be so expected. In the everyday, however, conversations such as that with my flatmate end only when both parties agree to disagree. She comments that the day has been long, and that it's about time we turned in; I follow her lead and close the door behind me.