New Jersey Doctors can't provide Assisted Suicide to out-of-state patients

PHILADELPHIA (CN) — A New Jersey doctor can’t offer suicide services to terminally ill patients living outside the Garden State, a Third Circuit appeals panel ruled on Friday.

The decision comes after New Jersey physician Dr. Paul Bryman carried on a fight to offer the practice to out-of-state patients.

In a news release Friday, Bryman lamented the court’s decision.

“I am deeply disappointed by today’s ruling,” Bryman said. “Terminal patients outside New Jersey should have the option of medical aid in dying without having to travel long distances.”

In 2019, New Jersey enacted the Medical Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act, legalizing physician-assisted suicide via pills for terminally ill patients.

The law contains several stipulations. The patient must have a prognosis of six months or fewer to live, and they must live in New Jersey.

New Jersey AG Investigates Group Accused of Trying to Harvest Organs from Patient Showing Signs of Life

Candace Hathaway, 12/03/25

'We're never really giving patients a chance.'

The New Jersey attorney general's office confirmed to Blaze News that it has launched an investigation into the NJ Sharing Network, an organ procurement organization, after nearly a dozen whistleblowers accused the group of numerous offenses, including allegedly covering up an attempted organ recovery from a patient who showed signs of life.

The NJ Sharing Network, a tax-exempt organization, was also accused of fraudulently billing Medicare, skipping hundreds of patients on the wait list, harvesting organs without appropriate consent, operating a fraudulent taxpayer-funded research program, and creating a culture of fear and retaliation.

'The only way patients will be protected is when law enforcement gets involved and prosecutes criminal activity.'

Town Reverses Course after Residents Rage Against Ban on Constitution and US Flag at Hearings

Officials apologized for a 'misunderstanding,' but critics say their intent was clear.

Officials of a New Jersey town now say that a ban on "props" at public comments during hearings does not apply to the Constitution and U.S. flags after the issue led to nationwide outrage and controversy.

As Blaze Media previously reported, Edison Township made national headlines when a man was escorted by police out of a hearing for carrying a small American flag while arguing against the decorum ban. While the ban doesn't mention the Constitution or flags, township officials claimed that both fell under the designation of "props" banned during comments made at council hearings.

'We are all proud Americans who believe in the principles, morals, and values the American flag represents.'

Man Thrown Out of Town Council Meeting for Waving American Flag to Protest New Ban

By Emily Crane, NY Post, Dec. 2, 2024:

A New Jersey lawyer was tossed out of a town council meeting by cops last week for waving an American flag to protest a “stupid” new rule that bans so-called “props” from being used during the meetings.

Joel Bassoff, a local resident and attorney, was ordered to be removed from the Edison Township Council meeting after he pulled out the star-spangled banner while addressing council members on Nov. 25, footage obtained by New Brunswick Today shows.

Bassoff was among the slew of furious locals who were voicing their objections over the township’s new ordinance that prohibits them from using any props — including the flag and even the US Constitution — during the public comment section of town meetings.

Joel Bassoff, a local resident and attorney, was ordered to be removed from the Edison Township Council meeting after he pulled out the US flag while addressing council members on Nov. 25.Joel Bassoff, a local resident and attorney, was ordered to be removed from the Edison Township Council meeting after he pulled out the US flag while addressing council members on Nov. 25. NB Today/YouTube

Town Bans American Flag From Council Meetings

Todd Starnes November 27, 2024

The Edison Township Council in New Jersey has banned citizens from having American flags, copies of the U.S. Constitution or “other props” at meetings.

A citizen who objected to the new rules was told by council president Nishith Patel that he was in violation ordered police to remove the man from the council chamber.

“To consider the American flag and the Constitution a prop when someone raises it is an insult to what the flag is, what the flag stands for and what this country is,” resident Maryann Hennessey told MyCentralJersey.com. “For you to consider the use of the American flag a prop is disgusting.”

Patel told the Edison Reporter that “any props will be considered not conducive to good order and as the President I am making that call.”

Persons From Other States Can't Come to New Jersey to End Their Lives

Contribution by Chris Sheldon, NJ Advance Media for NJ.com, additional commentary by Margaret Dore Esq.

A federal judge ruled today that the residency requirement in New Jersey's medical aid in dying law [formerly described as physician assisted suicide and euthanasia] does not violate the US Constitution, meaning the state can keep its right to die law exclusively for residents.

The lawsuit was the third in the nation to challenge a medical aid-in-dying law’s residency requirement, which is required in ten states: Oregon, Washington, California, Colorado, Hawaii, New Jersey, Maine, Montana, New Mexico and Vermont, and Washington D.C., officials said.

Of those ten, only Vermont and Oregon permit out-of-state residents to use their aid in dying laws, as a result of legal challenges brought by the former Hemlock Society, now known as Compassion & Choices.

New Jersey Update

By Alex Schadenberg (pictured at right)*

The New Jersey 2023 assisted suicide report states that there were 101 reported assisted suicide deaths in 2023 up from 91 in 2022. Assisted suicide started in New Jersey on April 12, 2019.  According to the report:

101 people were known to have died by assisted suicide, 

13 people received the lethal poison but died a natural death, 

3 people received the lethal poison but had not died and 

2 people received the lethal poison and died but the cause of death is unknown.

When the cause of death is unknown, it usually means that no report was submitted. Therefore it may have been an assisted suicide death, but no report was filed.

Florida US Senator Marco Rubio, and New Jersey US Representative Chris Smith, Question Pfizer's Position on Medically Assisted Suicide

PRESS RELEASE 02/28/24 

A recent report exposed Pfizer’s financial assistance to Dying with Dignity Canada (DWDC), raising questions about its stance on assisted suicide. DWDC has pushed to expand the eligibility for “medically assisted death” to children as young as 12 years old. Pfizer’s support for DWDC raises concerns that it is complicit in prematurely ending lives. 

U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) [pictured] and colleagues sent a letter to Pfizer CEO Dr. Albert Bourla regarding Pfizer’s donations to DWDC, and the company’s stance on “medically assisted death.” 

Petition Denied

On January 23, 2024, the Supreme Court of New Jersey denied a petition for certification in Petro et al v. Platkin. The Court stated: 

"A petition for certification of the judgment in A-003837-19 having been submitted to this Court, and the Court having considered same; 

It is ORDERED that the petition for certifications is denied with costs."

On the plus side, I think that we all learned a lot and will continue to do so. Special thanks to E. David Smith and his clients for seeing this matter to the end. 

Perhaps there is yet another path, such as the legislature.

Margaret Dore, Esq.

No Word Yet

On June 6, 2023, attorney Margaret Dore filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court of New Jersey, which seeks to overturn Petro v Platkin, 472 N.J. Super. 536, 277 A.3d 480 (2022). Dore's brief also supports the petitioners, including Dr. Joseph Glassman, MD, pictured here. 

Dore and the petitioners seek to overturn New Jersey's Medical Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act, as unconstitutional. The Act legalized aid in dying, previously known as assisted suicide, physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia.

The Act allows these practices on both a voluntary and involuntary basis. The Supreme Court has not ruled as to whether it will take the case. The case was previously titled Glassman v. Grewal and also Petro v Grewal.

Margaret Dore's Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court of New Jersey

Click this link to view Dore's brief as filed on or about June 6, 2023. The version below has been reformatted to accommodate this site.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Amicus Curiae Margaret Dore, who argued the cause below in Petro v. Platkin, 472 N.J. Super. 536, 277 A.3d 480 (2022), seeks to overturn the Medical Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act as unconstitutional. 

The case was initially filed as Glassman v. Grewel, then renamed Petro v. Grewel, and then renamed Petro v. Platkin. This brief is submitted in support of the petitioners: Dr. Joseph Glassman, MD; Manish Pujara, a licensed pharmacist; and Anthony Petro, a patient.

The Act’s findings describe the Act as “entirely voluntary.” There is, however, no enforcement mechanism to make this so. Deaths per the Act are allowed to occur in private, without a witness or even a doctor present. If the patient objected or struggled against administration of the lethal dose, would anyone, other than the person who administered the lethal dose, know what happened? More to the point, the Act allows deaths to occur on both a voluntary and involuntary basis.

Motivations of assisting persons can be financial, for example, to secure an inheritance before mom or dad changes the will. Motivations can also be personal, for example, due to jealousy or to settle a score. 

Constitutional Challenge Brief Filed in New Jersey Euthanasia Appeal

Updated Tuesday July 20, 2021

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TRENTON, NEW JERSEY, USA. Attorney Margaret Dore, President of Choice is an Illusion, which has fought against assisted suicide and euthanasia legalization throughout the United States, and internationally, has released the following statement in connection with the filing of a constitutional challenge amicus brief, which seeks to invalidate New Jersey’s Medical Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act. The case, Petro et al v. Grewal, is pending in the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division, A-003837-19.

Dore Motion for Reconsideration in Glassman Case

To view Dore's brief as submitted, click here.

I.   RELIEF REQUESTED

Margaret Dore moves for reconsideration of the Court’s order dated April 1, 2020, which upheld the constitutionality of the Medical Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act.[1]

II. THE ACT MUST BE SET ASIDE

The Court did not reach the Act’s violation of the object in title rule, which is dispositive to set the Act aside. The Court should reach this issue now to overturn the Act.

The Court’s order states that Dore asked the Court to declare the Act unconstitutional “on grounds not asserted by plaintiffs.”[2] The plaintiffs, did, however, ask the Court to rule on the issue, stating:

Ms. Dore’s brief should be considered by the Court since if the law is unconstitutional under the single object rule, it should be the Court’s responsibility to raise that issue sua sponte even if not raised by Ms. Dore or the Plaintiffs.[3]

The Legislature understood that it was enacting a strictly voluntary law limited to assisted suicide for dying patients.[4] The prior judge expressed a similar view. See, for example, the transcript from the hearing on August 14, 2019 (“This case is not about euthanasia”).[5]

This case, however, is about euthanasia. The Act is also not limited to dying people. Patient voluntariness is allowed, but not required. These are material facts not disclosed by the Act’s title and related findings. The Act is unconstitutional and must be set aside.

Margaret Dore: Euthanasia Act "Must Be Set Aside"

E. David Smith

On March 24, 2020, a hearing was held in Glassman v Grewal, a lawsuit, which seeks to invalidate New Jersey's euthanasia law, formally known as the "Medical Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act."

The specific matter before the court was a motion to dismiss brought by the defendant, New Jersey Attorney General, Gurbir S. Grewal.

The plaintiff, Joseph Glassman, represented by E. David Smith, opposed the motion, as did Margaret Dore, president of Choice is an Illusion, representing herself as amicus curiae.

Dore, who had filed both an amicus brief and a reply brief, argued that the Act must be set aside pursuant to the New Jersey Constitution. Her arguments largely tracked her reply brief, a portion of which is set forth below.

Press Release: Aid in Dying Act Is Unconstitutional

Margaret Dore, Esq.

Aid in Dying Means Euthanasia

TRENTON, NJ, UNITED STATES, January 10, 2020 /EINPresswire.com/ -- Attorney Margaret Dore, president of Choice is an Illusion, a non-profit corporation opposed to assisted suicide and euthanasia, has filed a friend of the court brief in Glassman v. Grewal, which seeks to overturn New Jersey's Medical Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act.

"Aid in Dying" is a euphemism for euthanasia. Dore's brief argues that the Act is stacked against the individual, not limited to people near death and unconstitutional due to the way it was enacted.

Corrected Dore Friend of the Court Brief: New Jersey "Aid in Dying Act" Is Unconstitutional

To view the filed print version, including the appendix, click here.

I.  IDENTITY OF AMICUS

Margaret Dore is a licensed attorney in good standing in Washington State where assisted suicide is legal. She is appearing pro se.

Dore is a former Law Clerk to the Washington State Supreme Court and the Washington State Court of Appeals. She worked for a year with the United States Department of Justice and has been in private practice since 1990. She is also president of two nonprofit corporations opposed to assisted suicide and euthanasia: Choice is an Illusion, a 501(c)4 nonprofit corporation; and the Foundation for Choice is an Illusion, a 501(c)3 public charity.

Dore has personally appeared and testified against assisted suicide and/or euthanasia in at least 20 US legislatures, and also internationally. Her CV is attached in the appendix, at pages A-1 through A-4. For more information see www.margaretdore.org and www.choiceillusion.org.

II. STATEMENT OF RELIEF SOUGHT

Invalidation of the Medical Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act (“the Act”).[1]

John Norton: A Cautionary Tale

By Margaret Dore

In March 2012, I watched John Norton testify before the Joint Judiciary Committee of the Massachusetts Legislature. A person with ALS, he had been told at age 18 or 19 that he would die in three to five years from paralysis. Below find his story, at age 74, as submitted to a Canadian court  via this affidavit: 

To Governor Phil Murphy: Veto Flawed Euthanasia Act (Bill A. 1504 Second Reprint)

Governor Murphy

By Margaret Dore, Esq., MBA

To view pdf version, click here

1.  The Act 

The Act legalizes “aid in dying,” a traditional euphemism for active euthanasia.[1] The Act is based on similar laws in Oregon and Washington State.

2.  Pushback Against Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia

In the last ten years, nine states have strengthened their laws against assisted suicide and/or euthanasia: Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, New Mexico, Ohio, South Dakota and Utah.[2]

Legal Analysis in Opposition to A1504

Please click the following links to view a legal analysis of A 1504, consisting of an index, a memo and an appendix

Margaret Dore, Esq., MBA

Press Release for Today's Hearing

Margaret Dore, Esq

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Dore: "The bill seeks to legalize ‘aid in dying,’ a traditional euphemism for euthanasia.”

“The bill is sold as assuring individual choice and control. The bill is instead stacked against the individual and a recipe for elder abuse.”

Contact: Margaret Dore
margaretdore@margaretdore.com
(206) 697-1217

Trenton, NJ – Attorney Margaret Dore, president of Choice is an Illusion, which has fought assisted suicide/euthanasia legalization efforts in many states and now New Jersey, made the following statement in connection with today’s legislative hearing on a bill seeking to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia in that state. (A 1504, hearing Monday, 03/12/16, noon).