Their deeply felt religious, ethical or professional objections to the Act do not suffice to establish standing, even under New Jersey's liberal standard.The court however went on to also reject plaintiffs' claims on the merits. In part of its opinion, the court rejected plaintiffs' free exercise objections to the obligation of a doctor who refuses to provide aid in dying to transfer health care records to a patient's new doctor. The court said that the law is a neutral law of general applicability, and that the obligation to transfer records is "minimally burdensome." North Jersey.com reports on the decision.
Objective coverage of church-state and religious liberty developments, with extensive links to primary sources.
Friday, April 03, 2020
New Jersey's Aid In Dying Act Is Upheld
In Petro v. Grewal, (NJ Super., April 1, 2020), a New Jersey state trial court dismissed a suit challenging the constitutionality of New Jersey's Medical Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act. Plaintiffs challenged the law on numerous grounds, including under the free exercise clause. First the court held that plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the law, saying in part:
Labels:
Conscientious objection,
Free exercise,
New Jersey,
Suicide