No, I don't believe so.
One thing we have to pay close attention to is the fact that “grievous and irremediable” is in the law—it's not a clinical term—and “serious and incurable illness, disease or disability” is in the law. It is, in fact, part of the definition of “irremediability”. When people talk about not having a clinical definition, that's inappropriate, because we're not looking for a clinical definition of a legal term. Legal terms from the statutes should be defined in the statutes—and they are. What happens is that clinicians have to determine whether that definition is met. That's where you develop practice standards, and that's what we have. In the model practice standard, there's a clear statement about “serious and incurable illness” and so on, so you wouldn't be able to show it was missing.
The other thing I'd add is this. Of course, “natural death” becoming “reasonably foreseeable” is in the Criminal Code. There isn't consensus among clinicians—there certainly wasn't when it first came out—about what this means.
It's not a justification for violating the rights.