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.