here is also the slightly less agreeable (but still true) implication that we are "able to leave when the play has ceased to please us" -- meaning that under truly horrible circumstances there is always the possibility of taking our "final exit."
I know you bring this up on occasion, but I can never remember the textual reference. Where is that?
Torquatus:
XV. The same account will be found to hold good of Courage. The performance of labors, the undergoing of pains, are not in themselves attractive, nor are endurance, industry, watchfulness, nor yet that much lauded virtue, perseverance, nor even courage; but we aim at these virtues in order to live without anxiety and fear and so far as possible to be free from pain of mind and body. The fear of death plays havoc with the calm and even tenor of life, and to bow the head to pain and bear it abjectly and feebly is a pitiable thing; such weakness has caused many men to betray their parents or their friends, some their country, and very many utterly to ruin themselves. So on the other hand a strong and lofty spirit is entirely free from anxiety and sorrow.
It makes light of death, for the dead are only as they were before they were born. It is schooled to encounter pain by recollecting that pains of great severity are ended by death, and slight ones have frequent intervals of respite; while those of medium intensity lie within our own control: we can bear them if they are endurable, or if they are not, we may serenely quit life's theater, when the play has ceased to please us. These considerations prove that timidity and cowardice are not blamed, nor courage and endurance praised, on their own account; the former are rejected because they beget pain, the latter coveted because they beget pleasure.
Your question (and something Joshua brought up in a recent podcast discussion) reminds me that for some reason I am seeing the first four doctrines in a little different light lately:
1 - is the antidote to "Fear of the gods"
2 - is the antidote to "Fear of death"
3 - is the antidote to "Fear of missing out", and
4 - is the antidote to "Fear of unmanageable pain."
All of which might be better thought of as an "innoculation" (does that get me past the current politics of the word "vaccination"?) 
But joking aside it's not only or even primarily a matter of calming an anxious mind (though that is desirable and applicable at times too) as it is a matter of preparation to weather the storms that come so that you will be prepared for them and conquer them in turn. That's what I take from the description of Epicurus as a conquering hero in the opening of Lucretius Book One, or the words of Vatican saying 47:
“I have anticipated thee, Fortune, and entrenched myself against all thy secret attacks. And I will not give myself up as captive to thee or to any other circumstance; but when it is time for me to go, spitting contempt on life and on those who vainly cling to it, I will leave life crying aloud a glorious triumph-song that I have lived well.”
While it has it's use for both circumstances this isn't as much a philosophy of anesthesia but a war chant in preparation for battle - a "glorious triumph-song" for those of a "strong and lofty spirit."
And knowing that no matter how bad things get there is a way out of unmanageable pain (if it does truly become unmanageable) is an important part of that.
It is schooled to encounter pain by recollecting that pains of great severity are ended by death, and slight ones have frequent intervals of respite; while those of medium intensity lie within our own control: we can bear them if they are endurable, or if they are not, we may serenely quit life's theater, when the play has ceased to please us.
Hmm... I've seen other translations and the Latin and I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation as that text endorsing suicide as a solution albeit in the extreme. I'll create another thread possibly so this thread isn't hijacked.
as a solution albeit in the extreme
Sometimes I wonder what "albeit" means. So to be clear especially for others reading this thread I do want to be as clear as possible that I believe that they were reserving suicide only for the most extreme of conditions. Just to construct some hypothetical I am thinking in terms of being King Leonidas about to be captured by the Persians and being sure that he would be tortured to death after he was caught. (Not that Leonidas did commit suicide - I gather he died fighting.) In other words some extremely painful torture and death was awaiting you with certainty and with absolutely no possible way to escape. However, in a way I do think that it is hard to draw a bright line on the definition of "unmanageable." I can easily imagine being bedridden with some extremely painful form of clearly terminal cancer fitting the bill. Yes we want to make sure that there is no possibility of escape or ability to endure the pain for the sake of whatever pleasure is still possible. But where to draw that line is going to be a subjective individual question rather than objective.
Or maybe - to be even closer to home - I would cite the example of Cassius Longinus, who committed suicide after thinking that all was lost at the battle of Phillipi, doubtless thinking that he would himself suffer the same fate as Cicero, or worse, after being caught by Mark Antony.
(It's also pretty depressing when you google versions of that name and come up with lots of references to salsa singers rather than Roman History.)
LOL! 
Just to check myself:
Yeah, I'm still not sure I agree, but this'll have to wait until later. I have thoughts.
Does VS38 apply to this EOL question? Reading through the PD and VS and saw it.
"He is of very small account for whom there are many good reasons for ending his life."
Oh yes I definitely think that applies. Like most questions it is important to point out both sides, and you are Not going to die voluntarily if there is any reasonable way around it. But sometimes you choose to die for a friend is clearly stated, and everyone should be a friend to themselves, so I definitely think that applies.
Yes let me do that now
How is that for a new title? Once we get settled down we can remove the administrative posts
I think we should preface this with some background on how the moral opinions on suicide are shaped by culture. Broadly speaking two major categories have been defined.
QuoteVarious sociologists and anthropologists have contrasted cultures of honour with cultures of law. A culture of law has a body of laws which all members of society must obey, with punishments for transgressors. This requires a society with the structures required to enact and enforce laws. A culture of law incorporates a social contract: members of society give up some aspects of their freedom to defend themselves and retaliate for injuries, on the understanding that society will apprehend and punish transgressors.
^Wikipedia page "honour"
Honor cultures would include Japan under the Shogunate, Rome under the republic, the American frontier West, etc. In all of these cases it is customary to hold one's honor dearer than one's life. Dueling, honor killing, and ritual suicide all have some portion in these societies. More anon...
Does VS38 apply to this EOL question? Reading through the PD and VS and saw it.
"He is of very small account for whom there are many good reasons for ending his life."
Exactly, ccarruth42 !
There's also VS75:
This saying is utterly ungrateful for the good things one has achieved: provide for the end of a long life.
εἰς τὰ παρῳχηκότα ἀγαθὰ ἀχάριστος φωνὴ ἡ λέγουσα· τέλος ὅρα μακροῦ βίου.
Saint-Andre has a note to this translation: The force of ὅρα here might be "provide for" (as I have translated it), "beware", or even just "look to"; the overall sense is that preparing for a supposed afterlife shows a lack of appreciation for the good things of life on earth.
Ok I see what you are saying, but I see that as coming very close to a "mind over reality" situation. If what you are facing is intolerable but you are still alive, why not do for yourself what you would do for your dog or a cat and put yourself out of your misery? I would say that if you are judging your net pleasure during pain to be worth the pain then what you are facing is indeed the first situation, where the pain is endurable, but that does not foreclose circumstances wherein the pain is indeed so intense that you rationally wish to relieve yourself from it even through death.
Do you not think that such situations exist? Or do you think that .even in such extreme circumstances we have the mental power to suppress our pain? The quotes about even the wise man crying out under torture might be relevant here.
It also might be interesting to seek out some commentaries on this to see if there are perhaps (as often) well known positions by earlier philosophers on this point.
you are Not going to die voluntarily if there is any reasonable way around it.
Again, I bring up the example of Epicurus's death. He *knew* he was going to die, and yet he still didn't choose to die voluntarily, even though there was no way around it.
sometimes you choose to die for a friend is clearly stated, and everyone should be a friend to themselves, so I definitely think that applies.
Hmm... not sure if I agree here either. That seems a little convoluted in being a friend to yourself so you'll die for you? I think this is an apple and oranges situation here.
We might have crossposted, but just so i am clear, you are taking the position that suicide is never warranted for an Epicurean?
So that while you might choose to die 'for a friend" you would never choose to die "for yourself"?
As Camotero posted I can see that quote about the man of being of little account who has many reasons for ending his life going in that direction, but i am still not inclined to read it that far as applying in all and every situation.
This is certainly an interesting question, especially in regard to Epicurus' own death. It has never been clear to me from the texts whether Epicurus knew that his condition was irreversible and terminal, or whether he had hope of recovery, which I think would make all the difference in a situation like his.
very close to a "mind over reality" situation
Oh, I don't think that at all. Even the sage will cry out on the rack. But leaving life "animo aequo" just means:
aequo (aequiore, aequissimo) animo, with even mind, with equanimity, patiently, calmly, quietly, with forbearance
If you're experiencing that much intolerable pain, you know what's coming. Scream, wail, cry out in pain, but don't rail against. Don't curse the gods. Don't complain about regrets in your life. If you *know* you're dying (which is what that kind of pain meant in Epicurus's day) and there's no escape, face it "animo aequo".
Do you not think that such situations exist? Or do you think that .even in such extreme circumstances we have the mental power to suppress our pain?
Again, I'm not saying the pain is repressed like a Stoic. I'm saying the pain is real, intolerable, and lethal. An Epicurean isn't "suppressing" anything. They're feeling and acknowledging their pain. If it's that bad, they understand the end is near. All this comes out of the medical assistance that was available in Epicurus's day.
Where we're at now with medical treatment is a different story entirely.
This is certainly an interesting question, especially in regard to Epicurus' own death. It has never been clear to me from the texts whether Epicurus knew that his condition was irreversible and terminal, or whether he had hope of recovery, which I think would make all the difference in a situation like his.
Well, he says ""On this blissful day, which is also the last of my life" That sounds pretty irreversible and terminal to me.
