On Wednesday, Sept. 18, a judge for the U.S. District Court in Camden upheld the residency requirement of New Jersey’s Medical Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act, asserting that the provision does not violate the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal treatment. The decision is in response to a lawsuit filed by Compassion & Choices on behalf of terminally ill patients from Delaware and Pennsylvania, along with two New Jersey doctors, arguing that the law’s residency requirement is unconstitutional.

A stipulation of New Jersey’s medical aid-in-dying law — which allows qualified, mentally capable adults suffering from terminal illnesses to obtain prescription medication to end their lives peacefully — requires that physicians determine their patients’ New Jersey residency before they can access the option. Compassion & Choices and plaintiffs believe that this requirement violates several constitutional clauses, including the Privileges and Immunities Clause, the Dormant Commerce Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. Ultimately, the court denied a request to suspend enforcement of the residency requirement.

This case is notable as the third challenge in the U.S. against residency requirements in medical aid-in-dying laws. Following successful legal actions by Compassion & Choices, Oregon and Vermont recently removed their residency requirements. Eight of the 11 jurisdictions where medical aid in dying is authorized currently have laws with residency mandates. 

Attorney David B. Bassett, partner at New York-based law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP and co-counsel for the plaintiffs, expressed disappointment that the ruling disregards the principle of equitable medical care. “Barring medical care based solely on where patients live … upends the standard of care for healthcare delivery,” he said.

Patient plaintiff and Compassion & Choices volunteer storyteller Judy Govatos, a 79-year-old with stage 4 lymphoma, lives just a short drive from New Jersey in Wilmington, Delaware. Judy wants to avoid a fearful death and leave a legacy of love and gratitude for her family. “I want to die affirming that I’ve had this opportunity to be alive in this amazing world, and to say goodbye and I love you to my family and friends,” she said.

Compassion & Choices Chief Legal Advocacy Officer Kevin Díaz points out that this ruling places medical aid in dying in a unique category of healthcare that discriminates based on residency. “For New Jersey providers, this ruling means that a patient’s lack of residency categorically denies them appropriate care at one of the most important moments in their lives,” he explained. Compassion & Choices’ legal advocacy team remains in discussions on potential next steps in this case.

Compassion & Choices remains committed to ensuring that everyone has the full range of options for the end of life, including medical aid in dying. To learn more about Compassion & Choices’ work to protect and expand medical aid in dying through the courts, please visit our medical aid-in-dying litigation page.

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