I've spoken with the administrator of a province's MAID program who interprets the law. Have you spoken with anyone involved in administering and interpreting the requirements?

Cannot be reversed is modified by under conditions acceptable to them. There's no requirement that a treatment be acceptable to any objective standard, only to the patient and two medical professionals who sign off.

And there's no time limit on when the death is foreseeable to occur for a death to be classed as reasonably foreseeable. Only that it could do so.

It is possible that the administrator misunderstood the law but they're the one running the program.

You should have mentioned a source in the original post, instead of 'Iirc it basically means'. I'm also unwilling to take a single anecdotal source as a citation.

To address the point about objective standards, yes, the patient has an option for personal medical discretion. This prevents doctors saying eg this Neuralink chip will fix you for sure. What is the risk to you, me or society if someone does not accept a medical treatment that they don't seem acceptable? This goes down the same path as the dumb abortion debate - medical care is a personal decision, fin.

From your link:

> experience unbearable physical or mental suffering from your illness, disease, disability or state of decline that *cannot* be relieved under conditions that you consider acceptable

That is indeed "very loose," and is not "clear" or "strict." Any mental condition that the patient thinks cannot be acceptably relieved now qualifies (or will after March 17, 2027, when that document says mental illnesses will begin to qualify, because it will somehow become more right on that date than when the law was passed).