In the moment, you’re not 100% certain the guy wanted to be on fire. The only thing you can do in this case at least is attempt to extinguish.

I guess the options are:
Put them out and fix them.
Leave them alone.
Kill them more quickly.

Nobody is going to stand and watch (or even speed up) something like that without suffering massive trauma themselves.
Right or wrong, they were doing what they thought best and what I imagine most think is best.
Anything else is academical

The presence of fire in a place not designed for it is a threat to the safety of others.

Maybe nobody was hurt, but if the authorities had neglected to put him out, and then someone WAS hurt, that would be on them. So, best to put him out. He can deal with the consequences of his actions.

Obviously, the guy did not want to live.

I'm not sure we can make such a determination. Self immolation is traditionally a form of protest. One can sacrifice oneself for awareness even with a desire to go on living. It's not generally an escape attempt chosen when losing a battle with depression.

I put out all fires I see. If you want to die use inert gas.

dark humor ahead

Just let the man cook

police were extinguishing the guy

Obviously, the guy did not want to live.

Human life is to be protected, rescued etc. in all cases.

We need to stay absolutely clear with that, because everything else creates terrible moral problems, for you and all the people around.

And if you want to start thinking such thoughts right there in a situation, it costs way too much valuable time.

Exceptions need to have very clear and very strict rulesThe whole society should agree with these rules. The responsible persons (doctors for example) need to be educated properly.

From what I understand, there is very little one can experience that's worse than being a full body burn victim. Whoever intervened did the man no favours.

It's pretty simple. If they didn't want to live, why didn't they self-immolate in a place where no one can put them out? By choosing a place with people they implicitly accepted that there might be people there that would try to not let them die. Maybe they even subconsciously hoped to be stopped.

Stopping physical harm happening to others is a very natural way of behavior. It's almost certain it happens when a couple of people are present. You can't ever blame someone for trying it.

And then there's the case of open fire being able to spread and hurt others.

This whole YouTube channel is filled with interviews of people, families and children making the best of lives many would feel not worth living. Even some failed suicide attempts leaving people with no face but some times better off than before

Its not up to the first reactors to decide if that life is worth living.

Although I feel that people should have the right to decide on their own if they want to live or not, they should be offered and given propped help before.

I’m mixed, first responders shouldn’t decide what lives are worth living, but I also believe in the right to die.

I think we all know how fire works. The moment they set themselves on fire, they'll be in excruciating pain. Doesn't mean it'll be a quick, or even certain death. If you put them out, you could be prolonging their pain, or you could be saving their life. And some things can't be undone. Just try to act in good faith...

I'll be a bit blunt, but at what point shall we leave some things to natural selection... Very often, those who set themselves on fire, die very soon after due to infections...

The bigger problem is, in this case, the inability of the system/society to recognise and deal with mental health issues on time or at all... About a quarter of Americans reported Mental health issues... In the EU only about 10% or less in countries with high social awareness...

So, I'd rather ask how to prevent those things happening in the future?

You can’t be sure he wasn’t set on fire by someone else ! Plus he might have changed his mind, or extinguish on his own later than you’d have out him out, staying alive and suffering even more.

I’d maybe make an exception for someone calmly sitting as they burn, as I think the Buddhist monks who did this in China were. In those cases it’s pretty easy to see they wanted to be on fire.

But a flaming flailing guy needs to be extinguished, whatever the reason he is on fire.

I can certainly see the point.

However at least in America self immolation and self harm in general pretty well remove your autonomy based on the assumption you're not mentally well enough to make a choice either way.

Even then, if you look at the guy who just did it at Trump's trial and the guy who did it to protest Israel they were on two different levels of cohesion in their reasoning and came to the same decision.

So to answer your question, depends I guess.

If you keep following this logic, this ends up in a pretty shitty ableist place.

If the person does survive they are going to have a pretty serious disability for the rest of their life - that would suck, but saying that we should let them die cos they'd be better off dead than disabled really devalues people who live with disabilities that they ended up with through bad luck.

If they have some way of indicating they do not wish to be resuscitated then putting them out is the wrong thing to do.

Otherwise it is hard to say. Fast enough and a lot of the suffering is avoided. Slow and there is a guarantee of suffering and likely death. Not a call I would want to make.

Legally this is similar to euthanasia or abortion. The priority is to keep the person alive at all costs even if it means lifetime of suffering.

Morally... I mean the person did it to himself, i bet he's already suffering. While being ablaze he is a danger to others as pointed out in this thread, and a literal fire hazard. Their suffering (that they caused themselves) takes second priority after safety to others.