Dr. Thomas Finegan:

It is certainly not. One can test it for oneself by considering the rationale which is proposed for getting to that point. The rationale offered here is that first of all we respect rational choice, we then respect autonomy and we then seek to minimise harm. That triumvirate urges much wider euthanasia access beyond cases of terminal illness. There is nothing within any of those goods that would restrict the case for euthanasia to six months of terminal illness. In fact, if we are looking to minimise harm then the case for considering chronic illness within the parameters of acceptable euthanasia is stronger than when we consider terminal illness. Someone with a chronic condition could say that they have more harm ahead of them in their life. Someone with a terminal illness can say truthfully that their harm is coming to an end. The rationale is not at all stable. When scrutinised, it contains no reason for the restriction that it posits.