Buddhism strives for non-suffering. Buddhism defines suffering differently than most people would, it includes even desire for things you dont have as suffering. I don't feel that to be suffering in the sense that we are concerned about in this thread which is physical pain leading to death and thus the emotional lasting torment of survivors.
Ps..
I was only infering from YOUR implications. If i'm wrong in what I assume about your implications or if Im wrong in the analogies then please correct me! I mean no offense. I was referring to this underlined part as it seemed to fit with exactly what you said...
7. Answers that trivialise the reality of human suffering
For example..
Suffering will be unimportant compared to eternal rewardsRational Response
This is ethically repugnant. Suffering is not reducible to arithmetic. This life really matters. Any philosophy that minimises the importance of physical human life is dangerous. It is the same mentality that leads to religious extremism and flies aeorplanes into tall buildings.It is an extreme example of "the end justifies the means" defence, so beloved of tyrants.
Like other theodicies it is dehumanising by reducing humans to pawns in god's game.
Imagine that scientists developed a pill that would eradicate all unwelcome memories and create a feeling of bliss. How would you judge a scientist who imposed the most horrific suffering on millions of people, as unwilling subjects of his experiment, but who offered some of his victims of the magic pills when it was over?