Compassion & Choices has appealed a federal judge’s ruling that upheld the residency requirement within New Jersey’s Medical Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act. The appeal, filed on behalf of Judy Govatos, a Delaware resident with incurable stage-4 lymphoma and Dr. Paul Bryman, a New Jersey-based physician, asserts that the residency mandate violates the U.S. Constitution by denying non-residents access to this compassionate end-of-life option solely based on their state of residence.

“While we are disappointed with the recent ruling, we remain confident that New Jersey’s residency mandate in its medical aid-in-dying law is unconstitutional and must be overturned,” said Kevin Díaz, chief legal advocacy officer for Compassion & Choices. “This law violates the rights of terminally ill individuals by creating an arbitrary barrier to end-of-life care based solely on residency. Every terminally ill patient, regardless of where they live, should have access to the full range of end-of-life care options.”

The lawsuit argues that the residency requirement violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause, the Dormant Commerce Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Compassion & Choices is committed to challenging unnecessary restrictions that deprive patients of options at the end of life.

“While the district court’s ruling was a profound disappointment, I remain hopeful that the appeals court will recognize the importance of respecting my right to self-determination, regardless of where I live,” said Judy Govatos, the patient plaintiff and Wilmington, DE resident. “Medical aid in dying is not about giving up on life but about ensuring that my final days are defined by peace without needless suffering. I look forward to the day when the law respects that choice for all patients, not just New Jersey residents.”

Dr. Paul Bryman, a geriatrician and medical director at a hospice in Camden County, NJ, continues to be unable to provide medical aid in dying to non-resident patients, even those who live just a short drive away. “The recent ruling reinforces a barrier that prevents me from providing patients with care consistent with their values at one of the most vulnerable times of their lives,” said Dr. Bryman. “As healthcare providers, our goal is to meet patients on their terms, to offer them relief from suffering, and to honor their autonomy. I’m hopeful that the appeals court will allow us to support the rights of all patients, regardless of residency.”

“This appeal is critical to ensuring that compassionate, legally authorized end-of-life care is not denied based on a state boundary,” said David B. Bassett, co-counsel and a partner at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP in New York City. “Medical aid in dying is the only form of care these physicians provide that is denied to non-resident patients, an unjust restriction that we are hopeful the appellate court will recognize and rectify.”

The New Jersey lawsuit is the third in the nation to challenge a medical aid-in-dying law’s residency requirement. Ten jurisdictions nationwide have passed medical aid-in-dying laws with a residency mandate (California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and Washington, D.C.). But two states have removed the residency requirement following legal challenges by Compassion & Choices. In 2022, the end-of-life care advocacy group successfully settled a similar federal lawsuit in Oregon, resulting in the suspension of that state’s residency requirement. In March, Compassion & Choices settled a similar federal lawsuit in Vermont.Vermont and Oregon updated their medical aid-in-dying laws to remove the residency requirement in May and July 2023, respectively.

Donor Privacy Policy — Contact
Texting Privacy Policy
Media Contacts
It's Not Assisted Suicide