New Jersey’s Medical Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Legislation: A Discussion by a Panel of Experts Edited by Hon. Paul W. Armstrong, J.S.C. (Ret.), and Janet S. Puro, MPH, MBA
O
n October 30, 2019, a panel of experts convened at the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy to discuss the legal, ethical and logistical issues associated with New Jersey’s Medical Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act. The distinguished panelists included the Honorable Paul W. Armstrong, J.S.C. (Ret.); Senator Christopher “Kip” Bateman; Andrew Falzon, MD, New Jersey Chief State Medical Examiner; Joseph Fennelly, MD, Chairman Emeritus of the Medical Society of New Jersey’s Biomedical Ethics Committee; Cathleen D. Bennett, Esq., President and CEO, New Jersey Hospital Association; and bioethicist T. Patrick Hill, PhD.
Armstrong: It is helpful to start with an historical legal overview of those precedents that inform and authenticate our newly minted Aid in Dying Act, which mirrors those of our sister states California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Oregon, Vermont and Washington and the District of Columbia. Let me simply call the roll of relevant cases: Quinlan, Conroy, Jobes, Peter, Farrell, Grady, Cruzan, Vacco v. Quill and Washington v. Glucksberg. All of these cases have historic importance, and I would like to underscore that New Jersey has been a leader in this area since 1975. The New Jersey Supreme Court has the richest body of decisional law in the world, recognizing and vindicating the right of each of us to make decisions concerning accepting, foregoing or trying proposed medical treatments.
From left: Andrew Falzon, MD; Raphael J. Caprio, PhD; Cathleen Bennett, Esq.; Hon. Paul W. Armstrong, J.S.C. (Ret.); Senator Christopher “Kip” Bateman; T. Patrick Hill, PhD; Joseph Fennelly, MD.
32
MDADVISOR | Winter 2020
We must begin in 1975 with the landmark case of Karen Ann Quinlan, as it was the first case to address these issues. The unanimous decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court on behalf of Karen Ann Quinlan, who was an incompetent patient in what is known as a persistent vegetative state, was important for three reasons. First, the ruling recognized that each of us has a constitutional privacy right to make fundamental medical decisions. We do not have a right to die, but we do have a right to make fundamental decisions while we’re dying, which is an important distinction. Second, if we are incompetent or become incompetent, our loved ones are able to make treatment decisions for us. Third, to obviate the necessity for court participation and to disabuse doctors of potential civil or criminal liability, the Quinlan decision suggested the deployment of an ethics committee in the belief that medical decisions are best made at the bedside and not in an American courtroom. The New Jersey Supreme Court,
