Again, I think we're in a hypothetical here. If, in the context of a clinical conversation about treatment, it was clear that electroconvulsive therapy, or ECT, was an appropriate treatment for that person's condition, they hadn't tried it, there was no reason not to go forward, the person was saying that under no circumstances would they have it, and they insisted on having MAID, I think it would be fair for the assessor to say, “I can't find you eligible in this circumstance. Perhaps at a later time we can talk about this again.”
On the other hand, if there was a good reason not to go forward with ECT—there were some risks in terms of the person's health or, to take a hypothetical scenario, the person was a lifelong activist against ECT—would it be reasonable to force that person to do something that they, for moral or other reasons, were just in disagreement with? That might be a situation where you would say, no, it's not reasonable to try to force that person to undertake that.
I think there's a lot of individual variation here.