Petro v. Platkin
Decision Date | 10 June 2022 |
Docket Number | DOCKET NO. A-3837-19 |
Citation | 472 N.J.Super. 536,277 A.3d 480 |
Parties | Anthony PETRO, Yosef Glassman, M.D., and Manish Pujara, R.Ph., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Matthew J. PLATKIN , Acting Attorney General of the State of New Jersey, Defendant-Respondent. |
Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Smith & Associates, attorneys for appellants (E. David Smith, on the brief).
Francis X. Baker, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Matthew J. Platkin, Acting Attorney General, attorney; Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Francis X. Baker, on the brief).
Emily B. Cooper (Perkins Coie LLP) of the New York bar, admitted pro hac vice, argued the cause for amici curiae Compassion & Choices, Lynne Lieberman and Dr. Paul Bryman (Emily B. Cooper, Alan Howard (Perkins & Coie LLP) of the New York bar, Kevin Diaz (Compassion & Choices) of the Oregon bar, and Jessica Pezley (Compassion & Choices) of the Oregon and District of Columbia bars, admitted pro hac vice, and Dennis Hopkins (Perkins Coie LLP), attorneys; Alan Howard, Kevin Diaz, Jessica Pezley and Dennis Hopkins, on the brief).
Margaret Dore, amicus curiae, argued the cause pro se.
Post Polak, PA, attorneys for Dawn Parkot, join in the brief of amicus curiae Margaret Dore.
Before Judges Sabatino, Rothstadt and Natali.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
NATALI, J.A.D.
After nearly a decade of deliberations among "policy makers, religious organizations, experts in the medical community, advocates for persons with disabilities, and patients," our Legislature passed the Medical Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act (the Act), N.J.S.A. 26:16-1 to -20, which Governor Philip D. Murphy later signed into law. Governor's Statement upon Signing A. 1504 (Apr. 12, 2019). As defendant represented to us at oral argument, since its enactment, ninety-five New Jersey residents have invoked the Act and ended their lives, without, to our knowledge, a single family member or interested party objecting to those unquestionably difficult end of life decisions. Nor has any report surfaced that any person utilized the Act for an improper or illegal purpose.
Despite the considered decision of our legislative and executive branches, plaintiffs, Anthony Petro, a terminally ill New Jersey resident, Yosef Glassman, M.D., a licensed New Jersey physician, and Manish Pujara, R.Ph., a pharmacist, filed a complaint that sought to enjoin and invalidate the Act. On April 1, 2020, Judge Robert T. Lougy issued an order and accompanying thirty-seven-page written opinion in which he dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint based on their lack of standing and failure to state a cognizable cause of action under New Jersey law. In a May 22, 2020 order, the judge denied amicus curiae Margaret Dore's motion for reconsideration.
In this appeal, plaintiffs challenge both orders contending the judge erred in concluding they did not have standing to challenge the Act. They argue they are sufficiently affected by the Act such that they possess standing to challenge it. As to the merits, plaintiffs and Dore further argue the Act violates the New Jersey Constitution and presents a danger to all New Jersey citizens.
We reject all of these arguments and affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Lougy in his comprehensive and well-reasoned written opinion. We agree with the judge that plaintiffs lack standing and their constitutional and other challenges are meritless in any event. We provide the following extensive amplification of Judge Lougy's opinion because of the significant issues raised related to the treatment of terminally ill patients as permitted under the Act.
We begin our opinion with a discussion of the legislative history of the Act and its operative terms. As to its intent and purpose, the Legislature expressly found and declared that:
When he signed the Act into law, Governor Murphy similarly described it as:
the product of a near-decade long debate among policy makers, religious organizations, experts in the medical community, advocates for persons with disabilities, and patients, among many others. Without question, reasonable and well-meaning individuals can, and very often do, hold different moral views on this topic. Through years of legislative hearings, countless witnesses, many of whom shared deeply personal and heart-wrenching testimony, offered compelling arguments both in favor of and against this legislation.
He also recognized the difficult personal choices attendant to end of life decisions, stating:
At its core, the Act permits an adult New Jersey resident with a terminal illness and whose physician has determined that he or she has a life expectancy of six months or less to be considered a "qualified terminally ill patient." N.J.S.A. 26:16-3. Once so qualified, a terminally ill patient may request and obtain from his or her physician a prescription for medication that the patient can choose to self-administer to end his or her life in a "humane and dignified manner." N.J.S.A. 26:16-3 ; N.J.S.A. 26:16-4. In prescribing the medication, the physician must inform the patient of the patient's medical diagnosis and prognosis and the potential risks associated with taking the medication. N.J.S.A. 26:16-6.
The physician is obligated to explain to the patient the probable result of taking the medication and discuss feasible alternatives, including, "additional treatment opportunities, palliative care, comfort care, hospice care, and pain control." N.J.S.A. 26:16-6. In order to request the medication, a terminally ill patient must have 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." N.J.S.A. 26:16-3.
The Act provides multiple safeguards for patients requesting end of life medication (EOLM).2 As a threshold matter, a terminally ill patient must be an adult resident of New Jersey who is capable and has been determined by his or her physician to be terminally ill and has voluntarily expressed a wish to receive EOLM. N.J.S.A. 26:16-4.
In addition, a patient must make two oral requests and one written request to his or her attending physician for EOLM and 1) at least fifteen days must elapse between the two oral requests; 2) when the patient makes the second oral request, the physician must offer the patient an opportunity to rescind the request; 3) the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mader v. Edison Twp. (Police Dep't.)
... ... issues pertaining to the LAD claims. "An issue that is ... not briefed is deemed waived upon appeal." Petro issues pertaining to the LAD claims. "An issue that is ... not briefed is deemed waived upon appeal." Petro v ... Platkin ... ...
-
TD Ameritrade, Inc. v. Kambitsis
... ... "ability or entitlement to maintain an action before the ... court." Petro v. Platkin, 472 N.J.Super. 536, ... 558 (App. Div. 2022) (quoting N.J. Dep't of Env't ... Prot. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 453 N.J.Super. 272, ... ...
-
Fin. of Am. Commercial v. Gem Real Estate Sols.
... ... 244, 252 (App. Div ... 1957)). "If we are able to do so, 'the complaint ... should survive this preliminary stage.'" Petro ... v. Platkin, 472 N.J.Super. 536, 563 (App. Div. 2022) ... (quoting Wreden v. Township of Lafayette, 436 ... N.J.Super. 117, 125 ... ...
-
Kismet Int'l v. N.J. Dep't of Labor & Workforce Dev.
... ... Ryan ... J. Silver, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for ... respondent (Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney ... General, ... attorney; Donna Arons, Assistant Attorney General, of ... counsel; Ryan J. Silver, on ... in this appeal. We therefore deem those arguments waived, not ... reserved. See Petro ... ...