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.

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.

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.

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]

Dore Letter and Bill Analysis Sent to the New Jersey Assembly

Dear Legislators:

I am attorney in Washington State where assisted suicide is legal.  I am writing to urge you to not make our mistake.  Please vote "No" on [the third reprint of A2270].

I have prepared an in-depth legal/policy analysis describing some of the problems with A2270, which can be viewed at the links set forth below. (or click here).

I make three points: 

1.  The bill, A2270, is titled "Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act."  "Aid in Dying" is a euphemism for assisted suicide and euthanasia.  The title is, regardless, deceptive because it implies that A2270 is limited to people who are dying, which is untrue. For example, A2270, if enacted, will apply to people with chronic conditions who otherwise have years, even decades, to live.  See memo, pp. 4-7.  Once enacted, there will be pressure to expand to a broader group of people.  See memo, pp. 7-8. 

2. The bill is a recipe for abuse with the most obvious reason being a complete lack of oversight when the lethal dose is administered.  See memo, pp. 9-16. 

3. The bill lacks transparency and accountability.  See memo., pp. 17-19. 

The last part of the memo is a discussion of the "Oregon and Washington Experience," with supporting documentation attached.  

Here is a link to the memo and attachments in one document: https://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/nj-no-on-a2270-no-assisted-suicide-11-12-14.pdf

Or, if you like, a link to the memo alone:  https://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/nj-no-on-a2270-memo-only-11-12-14.pdf and a link to the attachments:  
https://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/nj-no-on-a2270-attachments-pnly-11-12-14.pdf

Please contact me with any questions or concerns.

Thank you.

Margaret Dore, Esq., MBA, President
Law Offices of Margaret K. Dore, P.S.
Choice is an Illusion, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit corporation
www.choiceillusion.org
www.margaretdore.com
1001 4th Avenue, 44th Floor
Seattle, WA 98154 
206 389 1754 main reception
206 389 1562 direct line

Legal/Policy Analysis Against Bill A2270

By Margaret Dore, Esq., MBA

A legal/policy analysis against New Jersey's proposed assisted suicide/euthanasia bill, A2270, can be viewed by clicking here.

If the analysis is "too big" for your computer, you can view it in pieces, by clicking the following links to: the cover sheet and index;the memo; and the appendices.

There are three main points:

1.  A2270 is titled "Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act."  "Aid in Dying" is a euphemism for assisted suicide and euthanasia.  The title is, regardless, deceptive because it implies that A2270 is limited to people who are dying, which is untrue.  A2270 applies to people who may have years, even decades, to live.  See memo, pp. 5-8.

2. The bill is a recipe for elder abuse with the most obvious reason being a complete lack of oversight when the lethal dose is administered to the patient.  Even if he struggled, who would know? See memo, pp. 8-17.

3. The bill lacks transparency and accountability.  Id., pp. 17-19.

The last part of the memo is a discussion of the "Oregon and Washington Experience," with supporting documentation attached.

Please contact me with any questions or concerns at  contact@choiceillusion.org or margaretdore@margaretdore.com.

Margaret Dore, President
Choice is an Illusion, a human rights organization
Law Offices of Margaret K. Dore, P.S.
www.choiceillusion.org
www.margaretdore.com
1001 4th Avenue, 44th Floor
Seattle, WA 98154