The ministers explained that the objective of the choice that was made was to enable people who are suffering while in decline on a trajectory towards death to have a peaceful method of dying.
That being the case, there are choices about how the legislature could describe or define with precision those circumstances. We know the U.S. states chose a model that is limited to individuals who are dying from a terminal disease. The decision the ministers made here was to make it available to all persons who are suffering while in decline on a trajectory towards death, the objective being to enable people to have a peaceful death if the dying process they would otherwise have would be a painful one, a prolonged one, a frightening one, or one that they might consider to be undignified.
That is, I think, the explanation for why this element was drafted in the way that it was, so that the entirety of the person's circumstances could be taken into account to determine if they were in fact on a trajectory towards death.
It's not intended to be limited to those people who are dying from a fatal disease. It can include individuals who are dying in the natural course. If they also happen to be in a state of decline and suffering unbearably, the decision was made that this manner of dying should be available to them as well.