Insofar as we are concerned with a claim in discrimination, Karsai strongly indicates that the Court will accept limited PAD schemes as compatible with the ECHR. I have set out the relevant parts of the judgment on Philip’s feed but you might also find reference to these extracts useful:

Finally, the Court states it is not for it to decide where the lines should be drawn. I don’t know how else the Court could have said that it is for States to set the limits and we will accept those limits as justified based on the delicate balance to be struck.

Here the Court squarely confronts the issue of limiting criteria in the context of discrimination. It cannot but have been alive to the potential for states to limit access based on condition. Indeed, it explicitly explicitly states that such criteria reflect the delicate balance to be struck.

This is, I think, the clearest demonstration of why Karsai defeats your discrimination argument. The Court (as it did in Pretty) clearly recognises that it is for states to decide if PAD should be permitted and if so, how to achieve the balance (which may well be through limiting access).

The Court here acknowledges a growing trend within European countries of permitted “some form of access to PAD” and later the Court tells states that need to take heed of these developments

The applicant’s case itself was built on the possibility that there may be other forms of assisted suicide that aren’t decriminalized (eg euthanasia may not be permitted which would differentiate based on physical condition).

I don’t think this needs expansion - it seems clear that since Pretty the Court has recognised that it is for States to decide whether to permit PAD and if so what exceptions are permitted

The submissions of the interveners referred to by the Court itself specifically suggest a limited scheme would be permissible:

And while we are selectively citing Nicklinson, one should also include the following from Lord Neuberger which opponents of Leadbeater’s Bill fail to acknowledge - namely, that the ban causes people to suicide prematurely thus raising Article 2 issues. Sanctity of life concerns sit on both sides