They won't win because the law is clear. It's a PR stunt by advocates for an assisted dying law, which is a controversial thing indeed, and there are several threads on this site demonstrating that already. It isn't as simple as free will and choice; and people on a site that spends an awful lot of time exploring abuse, coercion and malformed consent within family relationships will understand that.
Assisted dying laws prejudice people with MH conditions and disabilities. That's what has happened in Switzerland, Canada and Holland.
And the debate always leads to resource based discussions about whether a person is worth care or medical provision.
The alleged right to die becomes a duty to die somewhere along the way.
Those who want it say safeguards will prevail; but again, these alleged safeguards have been as useful as chocolate teapots in Switzerland, Canada and Holland (where people are fast tacked to the clinics for MH issues like depression).
Eventually someone horrid comes along arguing that it is in fact a kindness to arbitrarily euthanise stroke patients and anyone with dementia, or anyone that's ailing, especially if they left an advanced directive. But it never matters if that person is incapacitated and unable to confirm their continuing consent.
The problem with it, as with most utopian fever dreams, is that advocates of assisted dying are chasing a rainbow. Equality of Outcome. A good death for all. Free at the point of desire.
They don't stop to consider the tyranny and collapse of liberty that follows for other people within their conception of themselves as a free citizen of strong will and sound mind, never to succumb to societal pressure or coercion.
Assisted dying is not a progressive cause. It's the stuff of nightmares.