Mill's Vs. Harm's Principles
             Its unfortunate that Gottfried is in such a sticky situation. Analyzing the situation with Mill's principles could lead to two different conclusions, depending on the type of utility you follow. In the long run, Gottfried will realize that there are plenty of fish in the sea and will go on to live a normal happy life even if there are more 72 hour relationships in the future. So you should do anything in your power to save him if you are a probable consequence utilitarian. This is in fact excluding the possibilities that saving Gottfried makes him part of the next Columbine High School shooting, which is why you couldn't make a definite decision if you were a only a consequence utilitarian. Maybe Gottfried has no outside life because he is developing the cure for aids in his basement, thus losing him would have a negative effect on everyone else and then you would of course have to accept his short term suffering as a small cost for the greater good. However in the short term Gottfried explains to you the intense pain and agony he is indeed feeling at the time. Now everyone has there own tolerance to pain emotion or otherwise. This could be the case were a Dr. Kevorkian routine could actually be considered the moral thing to do if you believed that Gottfried's pain was indeed unbearable and who had a hedonistic approach. It would serve no immediate harm to anyone because of his lack of connections with the outside world etc.
             Looking at the situation from Harm's principle, it can be hard to make a decision as well because of the previously mentioned situation. While it may appear that Gottfried may not be directly harming anyone else in the process of killing himself there could be an indirect evil done to someone. Think of the poor guy that's going to have to pick that crap up or how traumatized the mailman might be. It seems impossible to have "abso...