The phrase “reasonably foreseeable” is certainly open to interpretation.
In palliative care, for example, which is the field that I know the best, we have mostly cancer patients. In their case, it is fairly straightforward because the death of patients who are in palliative care and are in the advanced stages of cancer can be predicted in a reasonable period of time. Defining a “reasonable period of time” is very problematic for people who have chronic and debilitating conditions, such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and multiple sclerosis. These illnesses are very painful. They progress very slowly and patients get to the point where they can't take it any longer. They feel there is no longer any reason to live, that life is not worth it any more.
For these patients, it is difficult for the physician to predict how much time the person has left. This is an important issue for these patients. In our opinion, they should have the right to decide to die even if their natural death is not imminent and could be months away. The other issue—which is in the Supreme Court decision—is that these patients are still able to make a decision. They are able travel to Switzerland for assisted suicide in order to die. It is appalling to force them to go to Switzerland and perhaps they go before they are ready. In short, this often precipitates their decision; for this category of patients then, it is important not to impose a specific time period.