chosen to ensure that people who are on a trajectory toward death in a wide
range of circumstances can choose a peaceful death instead of having to
endure a long or painful one.
. . . . .
It makes sense to limit medical assistance in dying to situations where
death is reasonably foreseeable, where our physicians, nurse practitioners,
and others, can draw on existing ethical and practical knowledge, training
and expertise in addressing those challenging circumstances.
. . . . .
The question was specifically around reasonable foreseeability. In terms of
the legislation, reasonable foreseeability and the elements of eligibility in
terms of being able to seek medical assistance in dying, all must be read
together. We purposefully provided flexibility to medical practitioners to use
their expertise, to take into account all of the circumstances of a person’s
medical condition and what they deem most appropriate or define as reasonably foreseeable.
 In her answers to opposition members’ questions, the
Attorney General stated:
On reasonable foreseeability and diagnosis, as I said, we leave the determi-
nation, taking into account all of the elements, up to medical practitioners.
The requirement of reasonable foreseeability must be in conjunction with an
irreversible state of decline or a trajectory toward death. That would be
determined on a case-by-case basis, recognizing the many views that we
were provided on individual circumstances of patients being quite different.
 The Attorney General also tabled a legislative back-
grounder which explained that the Bill proposed to give physi-
cians and nurse practitioners a great deal of flexibility in
determining whether death had become reasonably foreseeable.
The backgrounder stated:
The criterion of reasonable foreseeability of death is intended to require a
temporal but flexible connection between the person’s overall medical cir-
cumstances and their anticipated death. As some medical conditions may
cause individuals to irreversibly decline and suffer for a long period of time
before dying, the proposed eligibility criteria would not impose any specific
requirements in terms of prognosis or proximity to death . . . The medical
condition that is causing the intolerable suffering would not need to be the
cause of the reasonably foreseeable death. In other words, eligibility would
not be limited to those who are dying from a fatal disease. Eligibility would
be assessed on a case-by-case basis, with flexibility to reflect the uniqueness
of each person’s circumstances, but with limits that require a natural death
to be foreseeable in a period of time that is not too remote. It should be
noted that people with a mental or physical disability would not be excluded
from the regime, but would only be able to access medical assistance in
dying if they met all of the eligibility criteria.
 In parliamentary committee, Mr. Ted Falk, a Conservative MP, made motions to amend the Bill to allow medical assistance in dying provided (1) only if a judge of the superior court