New Jersey Motion for Reconsideration

Margaret Dore

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: New Jersey Aid in Dying Act Unconstitutional

Margaret Dore, Esq.

Aid in Dying Means Euthanasia

TRENTON, NJ, UNITED STATES -- 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.

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]

To New Jersey 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]

New Jersey Press Release

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).

New Jersey: Updated Legal Policy Analysis for Bill; Stacked Deck Hearing on Monday

Please click here to see an updated legal policy analysis of New Jersey's pending assisted suicide/euthanasia bill, A 2270 (3R).

The bill is scheduled to be heard before a stacked deck, invitation only, hearing, as follows: 

The Senate Health, Human Services and Senior Citizens Committee will meet on Monday, December 8, 2014 at 1:00 PM in Committee Room 1, 1st Floor, State House Annex, Trenton, NJ.

The committee will hear testimony on A2270 (3R) / S382 from invited guests only; however, members of the public are invited to submit written testimony on the bills, to OLSAideSHH@njleg.org   

Margaret Dore

If New Jersey's Assisted Suicide Bill Is Enacted, There Will be Pressure to Expand its Reach to Broader Groups of People.

By Margaret Dore, Esq., MBA

Today, the New Jersey Assembly passed a proposed assisted suicide/euthanasia bill, which goes next to the New Jersey Senate. The bill is the "third reprint" of A2270, which has a six months to live eligibility criteria for assisted suicide and euthanasia.

If enacted, there will be pressure to expand “eligibility” to broader groups of people who are not close to death.  I say this due to what’s been happening with hospice and our experience here in Washington State regarding our similar law.  See also this legal/policy analysis of the third reprint.

Hospice

Hospice has a six months to live eligibility criteria.  In August, the Washington Post reported that there “appears to be a surge in hospices enrolling patients who aren’t close to death.”[1]  This practice is resulting in the overdose deaths of non-dying people.[2]

This is consistent with what I've been hearing from people in both the US and Canada regarding the deaths of their family members.[3]

Washington State

In Washington State, our law went into effect in 2009.  Since then, we have had informal “trial balloon” proposals to expand our law to non-terminal people.  For example, there was a column in the Seattle Times, which is our largest paper, containing this suggestion for euthanasia of people who didn't save enough for their old age. The column stated:

A few [readers] suggested that if you couldn't save enough money to see you through your old age, you shouldn't expect society to bail you out.

At least a couple mentioned euthanasia as a solution.[4] 

So, you work hard all your life, pay taxes and then your pension plan goes broke, this is how society would pay you back, with non-voluntary or involuntary euthanasia?

Prior to passing our law, I never heard anyone talk like this.

Don't make Washington's mistake.

Margaret Dore is an attorney in Washington State and President of Choice is an Illusion.  For more information about problems with New Jersey's bill, please see Ms. Dore' legal/policy memo regarding that law, which can be viewed here: https://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/nj-no-on-a2270-no-assisted-suicide-11-12-14.pdf

[1] Peter Whoriskey, “As More Hospices Enroll Patients Who Aren’t Dying, Questions About Lethal Doses Arise,” Washington Post. August 21, 2014, http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/08/21/as-more-hospices-enroll-patients-who-arent-dying-questions-about-lethal-doses-arise/?
[2] Id.
[3] See e.g. Carol Mungas, "I support House Bill 505, which clearly states that assisted suicide is not legal" (My husband, Dr. James E. Mungas "was effectively euthanized against his will"),  http://www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org/2013/03/i-support-house-bill-505-which-clearly.html; Daniela, "Euthanasia without patient consent and over the family's objection," ("Our family . . . is having emotional problems because of what we witnessed.... [N]ow I hear my grandma cry for water every night") http://www.margaretdore.org/2014/11/euthanasia-without-patient-consent-and.html and Kate Kelly, "Mild stroke led to mother's forced starvation,"("I cried much of the time, but softly, so she would not know.  I didn't want to add to her agony.")   http://www.choiceillusion.org/p/mild-stroke-led-to-mothers-forced.html
[4] To view a copy of the newspaper column, please go here: https://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/jerry-large_001.pdf.

Legal/Policy Analysis Against New Jersey Bill, A2270 (Assisted Suicide & Euthanasia)

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