Abolition of suffering is always moral.
Not necessarily. As a trivial case, think of allowing children to reap the natural results of their actions. Removing the suffering in the short term can be extremely harmful to someone in the long term. So some context is needed. Often well-meaning removal of short-term suffering can make things much worse over the longer term. The last 20 years or so of child-rearing theories have resulted in a lot of self-centered brats and parents pandering to 3 year old tyrants. That is most certainly NOT going to serve those children as adults. They will have a hard time with their bosses not thinking that their egos are the center of the universe.
Addiction is another example. Trying to remove the suffering which is a natural result of the addict's poor choices early on may mean they continue in a manner which really destroys their life, and even kills them. The sooner they 'get' that their choices are causing their suffering, and are willing to accept help to address the real issue, the better. One can easily contribute to a life-time of suffering and a horrible death by removing an addict's suffering which is due to his/her own choices. (for example, providing money, food, etc. often means just more money available for drugs...)
Life is more complicated than simple rules can represent.