Posted on 01/12/2020 11:45:00 PM PST by Morgana
A Washington attorney who leads an anti-euthanasia organization has filed an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief in Glassman v. Grewal, a New Jersey case brought by a physician who seeks to overturn the NJ Medical Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act. The law went into effect August 1, 2019, and enables a qualified terminally ill patient to request a medication to end his or her life.
A medical doctor has challenged the law, claiming among other things that the Act violates the fundamental right to defend life. A trial court temporarily suspended the law’s enforcement. The NJ Appellate Division reversed the decision, and the state Supreme Court rejected an appeal for emergent relief. The law remains in effect and the case that challenges it is proceeding through the trial court.
Margaret Dore, the Washington attorney who filed the brief, is also president of Choice is an Illusion, a non-profit corporation that opposes assisted suicide and euthanasia. She argues in her brief that the Act is unconstitutional under New Jersey law because it is misleading. Dore claims that while the law was intended to be strictly voluntary, it does not require “patient voluntariness.” Further, while it was intended to be limited only to dying patients, it is not so limited in reality.
She asserts that the case is really about euthanasia. According to Dore, “aid in dying” is a euphemism for euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. The Act defines self-administration as a qualified terminally ill patient administering “to the patient’s own self, medication” prescribed pursuant to the Act. But Dore points out that nowhere does the Act make self-administration mandatory.
She also notes that the Act contains other euphemisms. For example, it uses the term “medication” to describe the lethal substance used to kill patients, when in fact the term is normally understood to be something that treats disease or injury. Additionally, if a terminally ill patient were unable to self-administer the lethal dose, the Americans with Disabilities Act would require a reasonable accommodation. In other words, another person would have to administer the lethal dose.
Dore reminds the court that those assisting in suicide or euthanasia can have an alternative agenda. She cites as examples cases where those assisting were seeking to gain financially from the ill person’s death, either through acquiring the patient’s money or through life insurance. Also, the medical personnel involved can have a hidden agenda, such as doctors who get a thrill from killing or doctors who wrongfully acquire their patients’ assets.
Dore also reminds the court that the Act is not limited only to actively dying persons, but encompasses terminally ill adults predicted to have six months or less to live. Such persons may, and often do, live much longer than predicted. Furthermore, treatment sometimes leads to unexpected recovery. Finally, she claims that if New Jersey follows Oregon practice, chronic conditions such as diabetes technically would qualify for death under the Act, even for young adults.
The right to defend life? That doesn’t come into play here. If the doctor doesn’t want to help people peacefully end their lives on their terms, then that doctor doesn’t have to.
“If the doctor doesn’t want to help people peacefully end their lives on their terms, then that doctor doesn’t have to.”
_____________________________________________________
Good morning, wastedyears -
This, I believe is to prevent the camel’s nose getting into the tent.
As in some cases where the leftist/pro-murder folks attempted to force medical students to partake in abortions during their training, the left/pro-murder folks are going to use this to cause doctors to be forced into working with their patients who want death.
In the long run, it may be viewed legally that forcing a doctor to assist in killing their patient is unconstitutional, however, given the insane and often evil judges, I sure wouldn’t want to bet a medical certificate on the judges siding with sane doctors.
Never forget how Jeb! Bush put in place each step to be able to kill a defenseless woman in Florida and it went up 3 times to the Supreme Court and they failed to protect her.
I’m very okay with physician assisted suicide. As a cancer sufferer, I want to go peacefully with as little pain as possible. I watched my mother die a slow agonizing painful death and I wouldn’t wish that on my worst enemies.
This is nothing more than a measure aimed at “sanitizing” the murder of the elderly. I’ve said for years that governments would do this as part of a plan to prop up Social Security and Medicare.
At this point in my long life (I am 80 now) with secondary progressive MS (and all that entails and means), RA, possible adrenal insufficiency (I remain to be convinced), unpredictable periods of unconsciousness, pain unalleviated by CBD oil, in-coordination involving falling, dropping, and various incapacities best not dwelled upon, I am ready and past ready to die. What is there left? I see only misery for my family, distaste on multiple times daily cleanup, abandoned in my fecally loaded bed.
Why can I not be allowed to die? What is the point of all of this misery? So why can’t I take The Cocktail? What is being proven by my continued existence at such a low level?
On the plus side there are people who do well with the dying process. They don't need to be heavily sedated. They make the most of the time they have left. Others are turned into vegetables. It's generally not painful, and there is less needless suffering. But the fact is, they are turned into vegetables.
I have a proposal. Let’s abort Democrats. World would be a far better and safer place without them.
Some of the people who pass this kind of legislation might need a little aid in dying. Sooner rather than later.
I was too young to understand what was going on with Terri Schiavo.
Count your blessings, wastedyears, that you were too young to understand.
One had to really read deeply and follow the threads.
Jeb! literally signed into law each step allowing the death of Terri Schiavo to take place.
Between bills he signed into laws and ‘protocols and process,’ he and his ilk set it up.
Terri Schiavo was a test case. And the Supreme Court did what I call the Judas Move: It refused to take on the case to grant any relief for Terri Schiavo.
If they were non-believers those judges have literal Hell to pay, and if they were Christians, they’re going to have a bad experience seeing that part of their judgement through the eyes of the Lord God.
Terri Schiavo’s husband (I don’t think they were divorced) was living with another woman, had a child by this woman, and made money off several life insurances he got AFTER she was in the various Homes.
Bastard. And the woman....I’d say words fail me but it’s more of a case that I’d get banned for really expressing myself.
How do I know that?
Because I was banned for expressing myself all those years ago.....
I’ll get off my soapbox, now.
Again, count your blessings.....
P.S. You’d be STUNNED as to how many couples went out and made sure they had instructions for themselves, after that bit of travesty!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.