Western society has long suffered from what we might now call Schiavism, a desperate clinging to the idea that "only God gives and takes life". I suspect Schiavism plays a large role in holding back changes in attitude and legislation regarding cryonics, assisted suicide, euthanasia, but also medically assisted procreation, contraception and a host of other issues.

On the other hand, just because there exists a pervasive and ill-considered belief that people's lives aren't in their own hands, doesn't mean every such decision is automatically correct. In particular, depression tends to skew your judgements of self-worth systematically in the wrong direction.

In Chris' case there is evidence that he had amply considered what many here would consider the most rational option, cryonics, and reluctantly rejected it because society's Schiavism, and US laws in particular, make it inapplicable. He seems to have been aware of all the relevant facts: the biases introduced by his condition, the prospects for recovery, the probabilities of a change in attitudes or legislation. He and only he was able to weigh the scales of joy and suffering in his life, subjectively.

Chris' decision strikes me as a clear-cut case of "insanity as a sane response to an insane situation" (cf. Bateson/Laing) - the outcome certainly isn't rational, but that's a consequence of a reasonable decision process unfolding in a pathological situation.