Supreme Court of New Jersey: No Word Yet

 On June 6, 2023, attorney Margaret Dore filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court of New Jersey, seeking 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.

New Jersey Medical Aid in Dying Act Is Unconstitutional

Click this link to view Margaret Dore's amicus brief as filed on 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.... 

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.