This is the reverse case, though. Plus, child abuse can in principle be found out and mitigated. Death is irreversible.
Incentives are different too. Outside of highly fundamentalist cultures, there isn't really a strong benefit to a family from pressuring someone to keep a child. In developed countries, children are a huge liability for the first ~20 years of their life. Meanwhile, with assisted suicide, there are strong incentives around cessation of ongoing medical care (costs), and obviously inheritance.
Between that and possibility of presenting some murders as assisted suicide, I think if the idea is to be implemented, it really needs to be done extra carefully.
Child abuse is just one thing. There are people who don't have the capability to give proper physical and mental care, they don't even know anything, just wanted a cute thing because they don't have anything else to do. Then there genetical disease. Many just wanted a boy, so they play gamble and give birth to 3 girls. These kids are here for someone's selfish wish, may live miserable life in 3rd world countries. Bring someone to life, but don't let anyone escape unless going through huge suffering whole life.
Car kills many, doesn't stopped that from banning cars completely. Yes do it carefully, but no. Even people who live alone, doesn't have anything valuable, are not able to die with dignity. Must suffer.
Sure, but they also pressure folks into marriage and birth and organ donation and all sorts of things. It is definitely possible to do it in ways that help minimize this.
And even then: We already allow families to decide to take folks off of life support.
