Suicide confusion: Suicide, assisted suicide and Covid-19.

This article was published by National Review online on May 12, 2020.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley J Smith

New Jersey recently became one of the seven states (plus the District of Columbia) to legalize assisted suicide by statute. In effect, New Jersey sanctions suicide for some residents through its public policy.

Now, with COVID-19, New Jersey officials are worried about a spike in suicide caused by the shutdown, so for them, suicide is bad. From the NJ.Com story:

On top of the more than 78,000 Americans who have already died from the fast-spreading virus, a new study from the Well Being Trust found conditions from the pandemic — including lost jobs, isolation, and fear over the future — could lead to 75,000 deaths in the nation from drug or alcohol abuse and suicide over the next decade.

This comes as a number of critics say they’re worried lockdowns designed to save lives from COVID-19 could have an even greater toll due to economic and mental despair.

[NJ Gov.] Murphy was asked Saturday during his daily coronavirus briefing in Trenton if the state will track suicides and consider this when determining how to reopen the state. “I don’t know specifics in terms of tracking suicides, but we have said this: The combination of isolation and now other factors like job losses are having big impacts on folks, there’s no question about it,” the governor said.

So, let me get this straight. If someone is in despair because they lost everything when their business collapsed or had a loved one die from COVID-19, they shouldn’t be able to commit facilitated suicide.

But if they are in despair because they have been diagnosed as terminally ill with COVID-19, they should not only be able to self-terminate, but also, have their suicide facilitated by a doctor under a law signed by Governor Murphy.

No! That’s nonsensical. Governor Murphy should be concerned about preventing all suicides, not just some.

Suicidal ideation is suicidal ideation — regardless of the reason for wanting to die. Everyone who becomes suicidal because of a COVID-19 impact — or for any other reason — should receive prevention services. Everyone. It is illogical and destructive to the value of human life for New Jersey (and other pro–assisted suicide states) to have such a lethally dichotomous public policy.

Margaret Dore: New Jersey Motion for Reconsideration, on assisted suicide law.

This article was published by Choice is an Illusion on April 24, 2020.

Previous articles:

1. New Jersey euthanasia act must be set-aside (Link).
2. New Jersey appellate court lifts restraining order that stopped assisted suicide (Link).
3. Court order temporarily stops assisted suicide in New Jersey (Link).

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.

III. WHAT THE ACT DOES

A. The Act Allows Physician-Assisted Suicide, Which It Terms Medical Aid in Dying

Dictionary definitions of “assisted suicide,” include “suicide committed by someone with assistance from another person especially: physician-assisted suicide.”[6] Dictionary definitions of physician-assisted suicide include the following:

[S]uicide by a patient facilitated by means (such as a drug prescription) or by information (such as an indication of a lethal dosage) provided by a physician aware of the patient's intent.[7]

Here, the Act allows this same practice, which it terms medical aid in dying. The Act, “Findings, Declarations Relative to Medical Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill,” states:

[T]his State affirms the right of a qualified terminally ill patient, protected by appropriate safeguards, to obtain medication that the patient may choose to self-administer in order to bring about the patient’s humane and dignified death. (Emphasis added).[8]

The Act also specifically describes physician involvement to write the prescription for the lethal dose.[9] The bottom line, the Act allows physician-assisted suicide as traditionally defined, which it terms medical aid in dying.

B. The Act Legalizes Assisted Suicide as a “Right”

Again, the Act states:

[T]his State affirms the right of a qualified terminally ill patient, protected by appropriate safeguards, to obtain medication that the patient may choose to self-administer in order to bring about the patient’s humane and dignified death. (Emphasis added).[10]

If for the purpose of argument, this provision is limited to allowing voluntary assisted suicide (because it says that the patient may chose to self-administer the lethal medication), the Act will nonetheless also allow euthanasia due to assisted suicide being described as a “right.” This is true due to: (1) The New Mexico Supreme Court Decision, Morris v. Brandenburg, 376 P.3d 836 (2016); and (2) the Americans with Disability Act, both of which are discussed below.

1. Morris v. Brandenburg

The 5-0 decision states in part:

[W]e agree with the legitimate concern that recognizing a right to physician aid in dying will lead to voluntary or involuntary euthanasia because if it is a right, it must be made available to everyone, even when a duly appointed surrogate makes the decision, and even when the patient is unable to self-administer the life-ending medication. (Emphasis added).[11] 

2. The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)

The ADA is “a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in every day activities, including medical services.”[12] “Medical care providers are required to make their services available in an accessible manner.”[13]This includes:

Reasonable modifications to policies, practices, and procedures to make healthcare services fully available to individuals with disabilities, unless the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the services (i.e., alter the essential nature of the services). (Emphasis added).[14]

Here, the Act legalized “medical aid in dying” as part of New Jersey healthcare.[15] If for the purpose of argument, the Act does in fact require self-administration, the ADA will require a reasonable accommodation for individuals unable to self-administer. This will mean administration by another person. The Act will thereby require euthanasia as traditionally defined.

IV. HOW THE ACT WORKS

The Act has an application process to obtain the lethal dose.[16] Once the lethal dose is issued by the pharmacy, there is no oversight.[17] No witness, not even a doctor, is required to present at the death.[18]

V. “ELIGIBLE” PERSONS MAY HAVE YEARS TO LIVE

The Act applies to “terminally ill” individuals. The Act states:

“Terminally ill” means that the patient is in the terminal stage of an irreversibly fatal illness, disease, or condition with a prognosis, based upon reasonable medical certainty, of a life expectancy of six months or less.[19]

Such persons may, in fact, have years or decades to live. This is true due to actual mistakes (the test results got switched), and because predicting life expectancy is not an exact science.[20] Also, sometimes doctors are wrong, as in way wrong.

Consider John Norton, diagnosed with ALS at age 18.[21] He was told that he would get progressively worse (be paralyzed) and die in three to five years.[22] Instead, the disease progression stopped on its own.[23] In a 2012 affidavit, at age 74, he states:

If assisted suicide or euthanasia had been available to me in the 1950's, I would have missed the bulk of my life and my life yet to come.[24]

VI. ELDER ABUSE

A. Elder Abuse Is a Problem in New Jersey; Perpetrators Are Often Family Members

Elder abuse is a problem in New Jersey and throughout the United States.[25] Nationwide, prominent cases include actor Mickey Rooney and New York philanthropist, Brooke Astor.[26]

Perpetrators are often family members.[27] They typically start out with small crimes, such as stealing jewelry and blank checks, before moving on to larger items or to coercing victims to change their wills or to liquidate their assets.[28] Amy Mix, of the AARP Legal Counsel of the Elderly, states:

[Perpetrators] are family members, lots are friends, often people who befriend a senior through church .... We had a senior victim who had given her life savings away to some scammer who told her that she’d won the lottery and would have to pay the taxes ahead of time.... The scammer found the victim using information in her husband’s obituary.[29] 

B. Elder Abuse Is Rarely Reported, Victims Don’t Want to Report Their Children as Abusers

The vast majority of elder abuse cases are not reported to the authorities. Reasons include:

[F]ear of retaliation, lack of physical and/or cognitive ability to report, or because they don’t want to get the abuser (90% of whom are family members) in trouble. (Emphasis added).[30] 

C. Elder Abuse Is Sometimes Fatal

In some cases, elder abuse is fatal. More notorious cases include California’s “black widow” murders, in which two women took out life insurance policies on homeless men.[31] Their first victim was 73 year old Paul Vados, whose death was staged to look like a hit and run accident.[32] The women collected $589,124.93.[33]

Consider also, People v. Stuart in which an adult child killed her mother with a pillow, so as to inherit. The Court observed:

Financial considerations [are] an all too common motivation for killing someone.[34]

VII. PENALTIES PROVIDE A DETERRENT; NOT THE ACT

While elder abuse is a largely uncontrolled problem, there are penalties for doing it and when perpetrators are caught, they can be punished. The California black widows and the adult child who killed her mother with a pillow, discussed above, served prison time. With a risk of punishment, there is a deterrent to protect other potential victims from harm.

This is in contrast to the Act, in which purported protections are illusory, which renders potential victims sitting ducks to their adult children and other predators, without recourse. See below.

VIII. THE ACT IS STACKED AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL

A. “Even If a Patient Struggled, Who Would Know?”

The Act has no oversight over administration of the lethal dose.[35] In addition, the drugs used are water and alcohol soluble, such that they can be injected into a sleeping or restrained person without consent.[36] Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director for the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, puts it this way:

With assisted suicide laws in Washington and Oregon [and with the Act], perpetrators can . . . take a “legal” route, by getting an elder to sign a lethal dose request. Once the prescription is filled, there is no supervision over administration. Even if a patient struggled, “who would know?” (Emphasis added).[37] 

B. Someone Else Is Allowed to Communicate on the Patient’s Behalf

The Act uses the word, “capable,” which is specially defined to allow other people to communicate on the patient’s behalf, as long as they are “familiar with the patient’s manner of communicating.” The Act states:

“Capable” means having the capacity to make health care decisions and to communicate them to a health care provider, including communication through persons familiar with the patient’s manner of communicating if those persons are available. (Emphasis added).[38]

Being familiar with a patient’s manner of communicating is a very minimal standard. Consider, for example, a doctor’s assistant who is familiar with a patient’s “manner of communicating” in Spanish, but she herself does not understand Spanish. That, however, would be good enough for her to communicate on the patient’s behalf during the lethal dose request process. The patient would not necessarily be in control of his or her fate.

C. Purported Protections Are Illusory

The Act says that the attending physician is to ensure that all “appropriate” steps are carried out in “accordance” with the Act as necessary. The Act states:

The attending physician shall ensure that all appropriate steps are carried out in accordance with the provisions of [the Act] . . . including such actions as are necessary to: . . . 

(6) recommend that the patient participate in a consultation concerning concurrent or additional treatment opportunities . . . [and] 

(8) inform the patient of the patient’s opportunity to rescind the request . . . . (Emphasis added).[39]

The Act does not define "appropriate" or “accordance.”[40] Dictionary definitions of appropriate include "suitable or proper” in the circumstances.[41] Dictionary definitions of accordance include “in the spirit of,” meaning “in thought or intention.”[42]

With these definitions, the attending physician’s view of what is "suitable or proper" is enough for compliance with patient protections. The physician's "thought or intention" is similarly sufficient. The purported protections are neutralized to whatever an attending physician happens to feel is appropriate and/or had a thought or intention to do. The “protections” are unenforceable.

D. Deaths in Accordance With the Act Are “Natural” as a Matter of Law 

1. Action taken in accordance with the Act is not suicide or homicide

The Act states:

Any action taken in accordance with the provisions of [the Act] shall not constitute patient abuse or neglect, suicide, assisted suicide, mercy killing, euthanasia, or homicide under any law of this State. (Emphasis added).[43] 

2. The Act requires deaths to be reported as “natural”

In New Jersey, death certificates have five categories for reporting the manner of death, four of which are substantive: (1) natural; (2) accident; (3) suicide; and (4) homicide.[44] The fifth category is “undetermined.”[45]

As noted in the preceding section, a death occurring in accordance with the Act does not constitute suicide or homicide under any law of the State. The death is also not an accident due its having been an intended event. This leaves “natural.” Deaths occurring pursuant to the Act are natural as a matter of law.

E. Dr. Shipman and the Call for Death Certificate Reform

Per a 2005 article in the UK’s Guardian newspaper, there was a public inquiry regarding Dr. Harold Shipman, which determined that he had “killed at least 250 of his patients over 23 years.”[46] The inquiry also found:

that by issuing death certificates stating natural causes, the serial killer [Shipman] was able to evade investigation by coroners. (Emphasis added). [47]

Per a subsequent article in 2015, proposed reforms included having a medical examiner review death certificates, so as to improve patient safety.[48] The New Jersey Act has instead moved in the opposite direction to require that deaths be reported as natural. Doctors and other perpetrators have been enabled to kill under mandatory legal cover.

F. The Act Renders New Jersey Residents Sitting Ducks to Their Heirs and Other Predators

New Jersey’s slayer statute prevents a killer from inheriting from his or her victim. The statute states:

[A]n individual who is responsible for the intentional killing of the decedent forfeits [his or her inheritance].”[49]

The rational is that a criminal should not be allowed to benefit from his or her crime.[50]

Under the Act, however, a person who intentionally kills another person is allowed to inherit. This is due to the deaths being certified as natural. With the passage of the Act, New Jersey residents with money, meaning the middle class and above, have been rendered sitting ducks to their heirs and other predators.

IX. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

A. My Clients Suffered Trauma in Oregon and Washington State

I have had two cases where my clients suffered trauma due to legal assisted suicide. In the first case, one side of my client’s family wanted her father to take the lethal dose, while the other side did not. The father spent the last months of his life caught in the middle and torn over whether he should kill himself. My client was severely traumatized. The father did not take the lethal dose and died a natural death.

In the other case, my client’s father died via the lethal dose at a suicide party. It’s not clear, however, that administration of the lethal dose was voluntary. A man who was present told my client that his father had refused to take the lethal dose when it was delivered, stating: "You're not killing me. I'm going to bed." The man also said that my client’s father took the lethal dose the next night when he (the father) was already intoxicated on alcohol. The man who told this to my client subsequently changed his story.

My client, although he was not present, was traumatized over the incident, and also by the sudden loss of his father.

B. In Oregon, Other Suicides Have Increased with Legalization of Physician-Assisted Suicide

Government reports from Oregon show a positive correlation between the legalization of physician-assisted suicide and an increase in other (conventional) suicides. This correlation is consistent with a suicide contagion in which legalizing physician-assisted suicide encouraged other suicides.[51]

C. The Felony for Undue Influence Is Illusory

The Act has a felony for “undue influence,” which is not defined and has no elements of proof. The Act merely states:

A person who . . . exerts undue influence on a patient to request medication pursuant to [the Act] or to destroy a rescission of a request is guilty of a crime of the third degree. (Emphasis added).[52]

The Act also specifically allows conduct normally used to prove undue influence. For example, the Act allows an infirm person with a terminal disease to request the lethal dose. Physical weakness is a factor generally used to PROVE undue influence.[53]

How do you prove that undue influence occurred when the Act does not define it, and the Act also allows conduct generally used to prove it? You can’t. The felony for undue influence is illusory and unenforceable.

X. THE ACT VIOLATES THE OBJECT IN TITLE RULE

As noted supra, the New Jersey Constitution governs permissible legislative conduct when enacting legislation. To that end, the Constitution sets forth the object in title rule, as follows:

To avoid improper influences which may result from intermixing in one and the same act such things as have no proper relation to each other, every law shall embrace but one object, and that [object] shall be expressed in the title. (Emphasis added).[54]

The rule is designed to protect against the misleading of the people. State v Guida, 119 N.J.L. 464, 465-466 (1938), states:

The sole requirement is that [the title] ‘shall express its object in a general way so as to be intelligible to the ordinary reader’; and it is the settled rule that a statute will not be judicially declared inoperative and unenforceable on this ground unless the deficiency plainly exists. (Emphasis added).

In the case at bar, the deficiency plainly exists. The Legislature, the Attorney General and the prior court were all mislead by the Act’s deceptive title, implying that the Act is limited to voluntary assisted suicide, when the Act also allows non-voluntary euthanasia. This Court has also been mislead. The Act must be set aside.

Respectfully submitted this 18th day of April 2020

Margaret Dore Esq., MBA, appearing pro se
Law Office of Margaret K. Dore, PS
1001 4th Avenue, Suite 4400
Seattle, WA 98154
206 697 1217

Footnotes:

[1] The Act is attached in the brief's appendix, at pages A-1 to A-15.
[2] The Order, page 35, attached in the brief's appendix, at page A-20.
[3] Letter from E. David Smith, Esq., to Judge Lougy, dated March 20, 2020, in the brief's appendix at page A-23.
[4] See for example, the Order on Emergent Motion, Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division, August 27, 2019 (“the process is entirely voluntary on the part of all participants, including patients...”). Attached in the brief's appendix at page A-63.
[5] Transcript attached in the brief's appendix at page A-62.
[6] Merriam-Webster, attached in the brief's appendix at page A-27; https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assisted%20suicide?utm_campaign=sd&utm_medium=serp&utm_source=jsonld
[7] Merriam-Webster, attached in the brief's appendix at page A-28.
[8] The Act, Section C.26:16-2, attached in the brief's appendix at page A-1.
[9] The Act, Section C.26:16-6, states:

The attending physician shall ensure that all appropriate steps are carried out in accordance with the provisions of [the Act] before writing a prescription for medication that a qualified terminally ill patient may choose to self-administer pursuant to [the Act]. (Attached in the brief's appendix at page A-4).

[10] The Act, page 1, attached in the brief's appendix at page A-1
[11] Morris v. Brandenburg, 376 P.3d 836, 848 (2016).
[12] U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, “Americans with Disabilities Act: Access to Medical Care for Individuals with Mobility Disabilities,” July 2010, available at https://www.ada.gov/medcare_mobility_ta/medcare_ta.htm
[13] Id.
[14] Id.
[15] The Act, Findings, attached in the brief's appendix at page A-1.
[16] See the Act, attached in the brief's appendix at pp. A-3 to A-7.
[17] See the Act in its entirety, in the brief's appendix at pp. A-1 to A-15.
[18] Id.
[19] The Act, C.26:16-3, attached in the brief's appendix at page A-3.
[20] Cf. Jessica Firger, "12 Million Americans Misdiagnosed Each Year," CBS NEWS, April 17, 2014, attached in the brief's appendix at page A-29; and Nina Shapiro, "Terminal Uncertainty — Washington's New 'Death with Dignity' Law Allows Doctors to Help People Commit Suicide — Once They've Determined That the Patient Has Only Six Months to Live. But What If They're Wrong?,” The Seattle Weekly, 01/14/09, attached in the brief's appendix at pages A-30 to A-33.
[21] Affidavit of John Norton, attached in the brief's appendix at pages A-34 to A-36.
[22] Id., ¶ 1.
[23] Id., ¶ 4.
[24] Id., ¶ 5.
[25] See e.g., Dansky Katz Ringold York, Attorneys at Law, Marlton New Jersey, “How to Spot and Prevent Elder Financial Abuse,” April 27, 2016, at https://njlegalhelp.com/how-to-spot-and-prevent-elder-financial-abuse; and Beth Fitzgerald, “New Jersey Considers Law to Prevent ‘Granny Snatching,’” New Jersey Spotlight, MAY 21, 2012, http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/12/0520/2037/
[26] Tom Cohen, “Mickey Rooney tells [U.S.] Senate panel he was a victim of elder abuse,” CNN, March 2, 2011; Carole Fleck, “Brooke Astor’s Grandson Tells Senate Panel of Financial Abuse,” AARP Bulletin Today, 02/05/2015 (“The grandson of socialite Brooke Astor, who blew the whistle on his father for plundering millions from his grandmother’s estate, told the Senate panel Wednesday that his grandmother’s greatest legacy may be the national attention focused on elder financial abuse.”), and Matthew Talbot, “Issues of Prosecuting Elder Abuse: The Casey Kasem Case,” Talbot Law Group, PC, January 4, 2016, available at
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/issues-prosecuting-elder-abuse-casey-kasem-case-matthew-talbot
[27] Id., MetLife Mature Market Institute, “Broken Trust: Elders, Familyand Finances, A Study on Elder Abuse Prevention,” March 2009, at  http://www.metlife.com/assets/cao/mmi/publications/studies/mmi-broken-trust.pdf
[28] Id.
[29] Kathryn Alfisi, “Breaking the Silence on Elder Abuse,” Washington Lawyer, February 2015.
[30] “Adult Protective Services: Facts and Fiction,” Division of Aging Services, NJ Department of Human Services, available at
http://www.nj.gov/humanservices/dmahs/home/Adult_Protective_Services_Training.pdf
[31] See People v. Rutterschmidt, 55 Cal.4th 650 (2012). See also  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Widow_Murders
[32] Rutterschmidt, at 652-3.
[33] Id. at 652.
[34] 67 Cal.Rptr.3d 129, 143 (2007), available at
https://www.leagle.com/decision/200719667calrptr3d1291182
[35] See the Act in its entirety, attached in the brief's appendix at A-1 to A-15.
[36] The drugs used include Secobarbital, Pentobarbital and Phenobarbital, which are water and/or alcohol soluble. See excerpt from Oregon’s and Washington’s annual reports, attached hereto at A-41 & A-42 (listing these drugs). See also http://www.drugs.com/pr/seconal-sodium.html,  http://www.drugs.com/pro/nembutal.html and
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2977013
[37] Alex Schadenberg, Letter to the Editor, “Elder abuse a growing problem,” The Advocate, Official Publication of the Idaho State Bar, October 2010, page 14.
[38] The Act, C.26:16-3, attached in the brief's appendix at page A-2.
[39] Attached in the brief's appendix at page A-4.
[40] See the Act in its entirety, attached in the brief's appendix at pages A-1 through A-15.
[41] Attached in the brief's appendix at page A-43.
[42] Attached in the brief's appendix at pages 44 and A-45.
[43] The Act, C.26:16-17.a.(2), attached in the brief's appendix at page A-9.
[44] Andrew L. Falzon, MD, and Sindy M. Paul, MPH, “Death Investigation and Certification in New Jersey,” MD Advisor, a journal for the New Jersey medical community, 2016. (Attached in the brief's appendix at page A-46).
[45] Id.
[46] David Batty, “Q & A: Harold Shipman,” The Guardian, 08/25/05, at https://www.theguardian.com/society/2005/aug/25/health.shipman. (Attached in the brief's appendix at pages A-47 to A-49).
[47] Id., attached in the brief's appendix at page A-49.
[48] Press Association, “Death Certificate Reform Delays ‘Incomprehensible,”
The Guardian, January 21, 2015, attached in the brief's appendix at pages A-50 to A-51.
[49] NJ Rev Stat § 3B:7-1.1, attached in the brief's appendix at pages A-52 and A-53.
[50] Cf. Ilene S. Cooper and Jaclene D'Agostino, "Forfeiture and New York's 'Slayer Rule', NYSBA Journal, March/April 2015, attached in the brief's appendix at page A-54.
[51] For a more information, see Margaret Dore, “In Oregon, Other Suicides Have Increased with Legalization of Assisted Suicide,” August 18, 2017, attached in the brief's appendix at pages A-55 to A-57. See also the Declaration of Williard Johnston, MD, attached in the brief's appendix at pages A-58 to A-60.
[52] Attached in the brief's appendix at page A-10.
[53] Cf. Neugebauer v. Neugebauer, 804 N.W.2d 450, ¶17 (2011)(“physical . . . weakness is always material upon the question of undue influence”).

Margaret Dore: (New Jersey) Euthanasia Act "Must Be Set Aside"

This article was published by Choice is an Illusion on March 27, 2020.

Margaret Dore

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.

The Court took the matter under advisement.

* * *

Reply Brief Excerpt (web version):

B. The Act’s Title Is Misleading and Therefore Unconstitutional

The Act’s title, the “Medical Aid in Dying For the Terminally Ill Act,” implies that the Act is limited to the “dying” and the “terminally ill.”[6] As described in Dore’s amicus brief, the Act also applies to people with years or decades to live.[7] For this reason alone, the title is misleading and therefore unconstitutional. The Act must be set aside.

C. Contrary to the Attorney General, the Act Allows Euthanasia

Euthanasia as traditionally defined is the administration of a lethal agent by another person.[8] The Attorney General claims that the Act does not allow euthanasia.[9] This claim is wrong for the following reasons:

1. The Act’s name means euthanasia The Act’s name, “Medical Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act,” contains the phrase “Aid in Dying.”

Aid in Dying is a traditional euphemism for active euthanasia. See, for example: Craig A. Brandt, Model Aid-in-Dying Act, Iowa Law Review, 1989 (“Subject: Active Euthanasia ....”)[10]

For this reason alone, the Act allows euthanasia.

2. The Act allows euthanasia as traditionally defined The Act refers to the lethal dose as “medication.”[11] Generally accepted medical practice allows other people, including doctors and adult children, to administer medication.[12]

If the medication administered is a lethal dose, this is euthanasia as traditionally defined.

3. The Act does not require self-administration. The ADA would trump any such requirement Nothing in the Act says that self-administration is required.[13] If it were, the Americans with Disability Act [ADA] would trump the requirement to allow euthanasia for people unable to self-administer.[14] For this reason also, the Act allows euthanasia as traditionally defined.

D. Voluntariness Is Not Assured

The Attorney General claims that the Act is “strictly voluntary” for patients, which is not true.[15] As previously discussed in Dore’s amicus brief, a more obvious reason is the Act’s complete lack of oversight at the death.[16] If the patient objected or even struggled, who would know?

E. Purported Patient Protections Are Illusory

The Act sets forth patient protections, including a formal application process to obtain the lethal dose.[17] Per the Act, the attending physician:

shall ensure that all appropriate steps are carried out in accordance with the provisions of [the Act] before writing a prescription for [the lethal dose].[18] 

The Act does not define “accordance.”[19] Dictionary definitions include “in the spirit of,” meaning “in thought or intention.”[20] With these definitions, the physician’s mere thought or intention to comply with patient protections is good enough. Actual compliance is not required. Purported patient protections are illusory.

F. Deaths in Accordance With the Act Are “Natural” as a Matter of Law.

1. Action taken in accordance with the Act is not suicide or homicide The Act states:

Any action taken in accordance with the provisions of [the Act] shall not constitute ... suicide ... or homicide under any law of this State.[21]

2. The Act requires deaths to be reported as “natural” In New Jersey, death certificates have five categories for reporting the manner of death, four of which are substantive: (1) natural; (2) accident; (3) suicide; and (4) homicide.[22] The fifth category is “undetermined.”[23]

As noted in the preceding section, a death occurring in accordance with the Act does not constitute suicide or homicide under any law of the State. The death is also not an accident due its having been an intended event. This leaves “natural.” Deaths occurring pursuant to the Act are natural as a matter of law.

G. Dr. Shipman and the Call for Death Certificate Reform

Per a 2005 article in the UK’s Guardian newspaper, there was a public inquiry regarding Dr. Harold Shipman, ... determining that he had “killed at least 250 of his patients over 23 years.”[24] The inquiry also found:

that by issuing death certificates stating natural causes, the serial killer [Shipman] was able to evade investigation by coroners. (Emphasis added).[25] 

Per a subsequent article in 2015, proposed reforms included having a medical examiner review death certificates, so as to improve patient safety.[26] The New Jersey Act has instead moved in the opposite direction to require that deaths be reported as natural. Doctors and other perpetrators have been enabled to kill under mandatory legal cover.

H. The Act Renders New Jersey Residents Sitting Ducks to Their Heirs and Other Predators

New Jersey’s slayer statute prevents a killer from inheriting from his or her victim. The statute states:

[A]n individual who is responsible for the intentional killing of the decedent forfeits [his or her inheritance].”[27] 

The rational is that a criminal should not be allowed to benefit from his or her crime.[28]

Under the Act, however, a person who intentionally kills another person is allowed to inherit. This is due to the deaths being certified as natural. With the passage of the Act, New Jersey residents with money, meaning the middle class and above, have been rendered sitting ducks to their heirs and other predators.

Footnotes:
....

[6] The Act, N.J.S.A. 26:16-1, attached in the appendix at p. A-2.
[7] Dore’s Amicus Brief, dated 12/19/19, Section IX, pp. 6 to 8.
[8] AMA Code of Medical Ethics Opinion, 5.8, in the appendix at page A-17. (“Euthanasia is the administration of a lethal agent by another person....”).
[9] The Attorney General’s letter brief, dated February 4, 2020, page 8, states:
Dore’s argument that the Act violates the single object rule is premised on her misstatement that the Act permits involuntary participation and euthanasia. (Emphasis added). [10] Georgetown University information pages, summarizing the Brandt and CeloCruz articles, in the appendix at pages A-18 and A-19.
[11] The Act, attached in the appendix, at pages A-2 through A-16, referring to the lethal dose as medication throughout its text.
[12] Dr. Kenneth Stevens states:
Generally accepted medical practice allows a doctor, or a person acting under the direction of a doctor, to administer prescription drugs to a patient.
Common examples of persons acting under the direction of a doctor, include: ... adult children who act under the direction of a doctor to administer drugs to their parents in a home setting. Declaration of Kenneth Stevens, MD, attached in the appendix at pp. A-20 to A-22, quote at page A-22, ¶ 10 (spacing changed).
[13] See the Act in its entirety, attached in the appendix, at pp. A-2 through A-16.
[14] Dore’s Amicus Brief, pp. 10-11.
[15] The Attorney General‘s letter brief, dated February 4, 2020, page 8.
[16] See the Act in its entirety, in the appendix at pp. A-2 to A-16.
[17] The Act, in the appendix at pp. A-4 through A-8.
[18] Id., in the appendix, at page A-5.
[19] See the Act in its entirety, in the appendix, at pp. A-2 through A-16.
[20] Definitions attached in the appendix at pp. A-24 and A-25.
[21] The Act, C.26:16-17.a.(2), attached in the appendix at page A-10.
[22] Andrew L. Falzon, MD, and Sindy M. Paul, MPH, “Death Investigation and Certification in New Jersey,” MD Advisor, a journal for the New Jersey medical community, 2016. (Attached in the appendix at page A-25)
[23] Id.
[24] David Batty, “Q & A: Harold Shipman,” The Guardian, 08/25/05, at https://www.theguardian.com/society/2005/aug/25/health.shipman. (Attached in the appendix at pages at A-26 to A-28).
[25] Id., attached at A-28.
[26] Press Association, “Death Certificate Reform Delays ‘Incomprehensible,” The Guardian, January 21, 2015, attached in the appendix at A-29 to A-30.
[27] NJ Rev Stat § 3B:7-1.1, attached in the appendix at pages A-31 and A-32.
[28] Cf. Ilene S. Cooper and Jaclene D'Agostino, "Forfeiture and New York's 'Slayer Rule', NYSBA Journal, March/April 2015

New Jersey appellate court lifts restraining order that stopped assisted suicide.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Superior Court of New Jersey, Justice Paul Innes, signed a temporary restraining order on August 14, giving the New Jersey Attorney General, Gurbir Singh Grewel until September 13th to respond to the order.

The New Jersey assisted suicide law passed on March 25 and was signed into law by the Governor on April 12.

The assisted suicide law went into effect on August 1 but was restrained from taking effect on August 14.
 
Today, a New Jersey appellate court lifted the temporary restraining order that prevented the assisted suicide law from going into effect.

Judges Carman Messano and Arnold L Natali JR decided today that Justice Paul Innes erred by granting a temporary restraining order of the law and stated that the plaintiff, Dr Joseph Glassman did not satisfy the standard required to grant a restraining order.

The restraining order was dissolved and the Judges remanded the order to be decided by the trial court.

Lawyers for Dr Glassman told me that they made an immediate appeal, of the appellate court ruling, to the New Jersey Supreme Court.

Court order temporarily stops assisted suicide in New Jersey.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I have amazing news.

Smith and Associates, a New Jersey law firm, obtained a temporary restraining order preventing the New Jersey assisted suicide act from going into effect. 

The New Jersey assisted suicide law passed on March 25 and was signed into law by Governor Phil Murphy on April 12.

The assisted suicide law went into effect on August 1, but due to the 15 day waiting period, no one could legally die by assisted suicide until Friday August 16. Smith and Associates stated:

The Act (which should be more properly called the “New Jersey Physician-Assisted Suicide Act”), provides for, among other things, the self-infliction of death by way of fatal “medication”, i.e. pharmaceutical poisons; compelling even non-participating physicians to transfer patients’ medical records for the purpose of furthering the Statute’s aims against many of such physicians’ beliefs and duties; allowing for the disparate treatment of patients; allowing for the transfer of unused fatal pharmaceuticals to persons not otherwise authorized; and amending the statutory duty to otherwise warn of harm to others. Moreover, the Act provides that in advance of the effective date of August 1, 2019, no fewer than six (6) regulatory bodies were to have issued required rules and regulations. However, no such required regulations or rules have been issued, rendering the entire death process wholly unregulated. If the Act is not immediately enjoined, New Jersey citizens can actually begin dying pursuant to its provisions as early as August 16, 2019.

The Superior Court of New Jersey, Justice Paul Innes, signed the temporary restraining order this morning. The New Jersey Attorney General, Gurbir Singh Grewel will have until September 13th to respond to the order.

Not Dead Yet and disability rights groups against assisted suicide are being blocked at public hearings.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Anita Cameron (center)

Not Dead Yet, and other disability rights groups have been a strong and effective voice against the legalization of assisted suicide. Recent public hearings on assisted suicide bills have been orchestrated to either reduce or eliminate the opportunity for disability rights groups from speaking against assisted suicide.

Not Dead Yet reported that many disability rights organizations were blocked from giving testimony at the New Jersey committee hearing earlier this month. More recently, Not Dead Yet reported that disability rights groups were forced to wait, before they could give testimony in Maryland. Anita Cameron, from Not Dead Yet, said that people with disabilities often experience complicated health and transportation issues. Sheryl Grossman, a Maryland resident with the National Council on Independent Living had to leave before she could offer testimony.

For many years the assisted suicide lobby has tried to neutralize or eliminate the effect of the disability rights groups opposition to assisted suicide. This may be a new strategy.

Three reasons why we need to stop physician-assisted suicide.

Alex Schadenberg

Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Bill Spadea from NJ 101.5 has published articles and interviews opposing assisted suicide. New Jersey is debating assisted suicide Bill S1072.

Recently,  New Jersey Senate President Steve Sweeney exercised his political power by replacing two members on the Senate Health, Human Services and Senior Citizens Committee who were intending to vote against the Assisted Suicide bill, Bill S1072.

Sweeney replaced these members with two people who voted in favour of Bill S1072 : Senator Scutari .. and himself.

Spadea writes:

He was actually quoted in our news report saying that the assisted suicide bill is not really suicide. What? Very sad that Steve Sweeney is willing to play politics with peoples lives. Very disturbing that the top guy in the legislature is willing to ignore the pleas from medical professionals, disabled advocates, patients and families in order to push his own agenda.

Spadea interviews Kristen Hanson (above), the widow of JJ Hansen, who was the President of the Patients Rights Action Fund. Hanson explains three reasons why assisted suicide must be defeated.

First, doctors get some diagnoses wrong. In her husband's case, he was told he had only a few months to live. Those months turned into years that he was able to spend with his loving and growing family.

Second, the proposed law lacks safeguards for patients suffering from mental health issues and depression. It's a 'prescribe the death pill and move on' mentality with no follow up leaving patients vulnerable to terrible and irreversible actions.

Third, and this may be the most frightening part of the bill, legal doctor assisted suicide leaves the door open for insurance companies to DENY life saving treatments in favor of the lower cost option of suicide.

Further reasons to oppose assisted suicide:

• 12 myths about assisted suicide and medical aid in dying.
• John Kelly's testimony opposing New Jersey assisted suicide bill.
• Diane Coleman: Why I oppose assisted suicide laws.

Diane Coleman: I depend on life-support to stay alive. Why I oppose assisted suicide laws.

This article was published by NJ.com on October 26, 2018.

By Diane Coleman

President and CEO of the Disability Rights Group Not Dead Yet

Diane Coleman

I have an advanced neuromuscular condition and must use breathing support with a mask 18 hours a day. As a severely disabled person who depends on life-sustaining treatment, I would be able to qualify for assisted suicide at any time where it is legal.

If I became despondent, for example if I lost my husband or my job, and decided that I wanted to die, I would not be treated the same as a nondisabled, healthy person who despaired over divorce or job loss.

If anyone doubted that someone like me would qualify for assisted suicide in a state like Oregon, those doubts were laid to rest in December 2017 when an Oregon Public Health Department official clarified in writing:

"Patients suffering from any disease (not just those that typically qualify one for the DWDA [Death With Dignity Act]) may not be able to afford some treatments or medication, and may choose not to pursue some treatments or take some medication for personal reasons. . . . If the patient does not receive treatment or medication (for whatever reason) and is left with a terminal illness, then s/he would qualify for the DWDA."

In the decade leading up to the passage of Oregon's assisted suicide referendum in 1997, proponents often revealed their view that people with disabilities should be eligible. Two thirds of "Dr. Death" Jack Kevorkian's body count were people with non-terminal conditions like multiple sclerosis.

The Hemlock Society contributed to his legal defense fund.

When the Hemlock Society morphed into "Compassion and Choices," the messaging shifted, partly in an effort to exclude disability rights organizations from the public debate. Assisted suicide is only for people expected to die within six months, they said. The person must self-administer the lethal drugs, so no one else could kill them, they said.

Any reasonably trained lawyer should be able to see the absence of meaningful patient protections in assisted suicide bills. It took a decade to pass the Washington State statute that came next.

All along, disability groups have pointed out the inherent discrimination and empty pretense of safeguards in these bills. Why does everyone else get suicide prevention, while old, ill and disabled people get suicide assistance? How could a doctor who's known a person for an average of 13 weeks know if they are being pressured to ask for assisted suicide?

Reported reasons for requesting assisted suicide pertain to disability, chronic or acquired due to illness.

Three of these reasons (feeling a loss of autonomy, loss of dignity, feelings of being a burden) could be addressed by consumer-directed in-home care services. However no disclosure or provision of such services is required. Basically, the law operates as though the reasons don't matter, and nothing need be done to address them.

People who need home care shouldn't be treated as disposable.

Assisted suicide proponents are fond of saying that many people don't go through with it, but the lethal drugs give them peace of mind. What if some of the many who change their mind have family members who are not happy about it?

If the only other person present at the end is a greedy heir or tired caregiver, there are no safeguards to determine whether they self-administered the lethal drug or were cajoled, tricked or forced.

Although these and other obvious weaknesses persist in New Jersey's assisted suicide bill (AB1504), the New Jersey Law Journal not only endorses it, but openly advocates expanding it to include active euthanasia and eligibility for people who are not expected to die in six months. No more incremental strategy, no need to hide the broader agenda.

Throughout last summer, people in wheelchairs with the group ADAPT were dragged out of Congressional hearings and arrested, leading successful efforts to save healthcare for millions of Americans. This same group asserts that "Assisted suicide is not about relieving the suffering of the dying: it is an expression of the most toxic and deadly form of ableism."

We urge New Jersey lawmakers to reject ableism, to look behind the public relations images of assisted suicide and consider the dangers to the many elders, ill and disabled people who are not safe from mistake, coercion and abuse.

Diane Coleman is the president and CEO of Not Dead Yet, a national disability rights group which she founded in 1996 to give voice to disability rights opposition to legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia.