Clearer terminology is needed to determine who is eligible for voluntary assisted dying in the ACT's proposed bill, a parliamentary inquiry has recommended.
A Legislative Assembly select committee said the phrases that a person must have an "advanced" condition and be in the "last stages of life" needed to be more clearly defined.
But members of the committee have disagreed on a final report.
Opposition members have written a dissenting report saying the bill was the "most ideological and extreme assisted dying legislation in the country".
Ed Cocks and Leanne Castley believed the bill should not be passed in its current form, saying it needed to be brought more in line with laws in other states.
Greens' member Andrew Braddock felt the bill was not ambitious enough and was concerned it did not include advanced health directives so people with dementia could access voluntary assisted dying. But he believed the bill should still pass.
"It is unfortunate that this bill is nowhere near as ambitious as it could be, and we should immediately be looking at going further. So those who are suffering dementia or similar ailments can experience a pain free and dignified death," he said.
The committee handed down 27 recommendations for the bill.
One of the main recommendations was around tightening up definitions around who is eligible for voluntary assisted dying.
Unlike other jurisdictions, the ACT won't require an expected time frame to death in eligibility criteria, instead, the bill says a person must be in the "last stages of life".
Several groups who gave evidence to the inquiry said the term could create uncertainty as different health professionals could have different views about what this means.
The committee also recommended the government extend timelines for health professionals to accept or refuse voluntary assisted dying requests from two days to four days.
The Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation expressed concern that short-staffed nurses could potentially face unfair criminal charges for failing to meet the timelines.
However, Labor member Marisa Paterson did not agree with this recommendation.
"While I respect the right of an individual health practitioner to conscientiously object, they should not in any way obstruct or delay an individual's right to access VAD," she wrote in a dissenting report.
The committee also said the bill should better clarify who is a health professional. The bill allows for health professionals to initiate conversations about voluntary assisted dying but pharmacists said it was unclear whether pharmacists were considered such professionals.
The committee's main report did not make any recommendations around adding a timeline or opening access to teenagers, which had been considered by the government prior to the bill.
The matter of extending access will be considered three years after the law has been enacted in a review, alongside whether voluntary assisted dying should be allowed in advanced care directives.
Mr Cocks and Ms Castley took aim at Human Rights Minister Tara Cheyne over this and claimed the removal of an age limit was due to the upcoming election.
"While the minister's most extreme proposals were removed prior to the presentation of the bill, we remain deeply concerned that the minister may have elected to remove those controversial provisions only because they are electorally unpopular," their dissenting report said.
"We are also concerned the minister may intend to introduce those same expansion provisions after the threat of an imminent election has passed."
The views are not reflective of the wider Canberra Liberals, with the party allowing a conscience vote on the bill.
Committee chair Suzanne Orr, a Labor member, said the committee had gained a deeper understanding of the issue through those who gave evidence.
"The committee acknowledges that voluntary assisted dying is a sensitive topic and that different people will have different views on it," she said.
"It was important to explore the views of a range of stakeholder with different views and expertise in different areas to inform this inquiry."
The government will have four months to respond to the report but Ms Cheyne has previously indicated she would like the bill to pass in the first half of the year.
