Know your vote. Take a look at your sample ballot now!

Paul W. Armstrong

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Local Politics Image.jpg

Ballotpedia provides comprehensive election coverage of the 100 largest cities in America by population as well as mayoral, city council, and district attorney election coverage in state capitals outside of the 100 largest cities. This judge is outside of that coverage scope and does not receive scheduled updates.


BP-Initials-UPDATED.png
Ballotpedia does not currently cover this office or maintain this page. Please contact us with any updates.
Paul W. Armstrong

Silhouette Placeholder Image.png

Do you have a photo that could go here? Click here to submit it for this profile!


New Jersey Vicinage 10 Superior Court
Tenure
Present officeholder

Education

Bachelor's

University of Dayton

Law

University of Notre Dame


Paul W. Armstrong was a judge for the Vicinage 13 Superior Court in New Jersey. He was nominated by Gov. Christine Todd Whitman (R) in 2000 and reappointed with tenure in 2007. Armstrong retired from the bench in May 2015 when he reached the mandatory retirement age of 70.[1]

Following his retirement, Armstrong was assigned to the Morris County bench as a recall judge.[2] Recall judges in New Jersey are retired judges who serve the court on a temporary basis.[3][4]

Biography

Email editor@ballotpedia.org to notify us of updates to this biography.

Armstrong earned a B.A. from the University of Dayton and a J.D. from the University of Notre Dame.[5]

Prior to joining the superior court, Armstrong argued the aid in dying case of Karen Ann Quinlan before the New Jersey Supreme Court and the aid in dying case of Nancy Beth Cruzan before the U.S. Supreme Court. His experience also includes service as the chair of the New Jersey Bioethics Commission.[1]

Noteworthy cases

S.A. case (2017) and A.G. case (2016)

Armstrong granted guardianship of a woman identified as "S.A." to her parents on October 24, 2017, ruling that she was not capable of making her own medical decisions.[6]

S.A., who was 20 years old and suffered from anorexia at the time of the ruling, was found unconscious by her brother in June 2017. She was ultimately transported to the Eating Disorders Center at Princeton's University Medical Center, where her treatment included artificial feeding. S.A. opposed the artificial feeding and asked to be released from the facility to manage the eating disorder on her own. Her parents petitioned for guardianship in order to make medical decisions, including continuing the artificial feeding, on S.A.'s behalf.[6]

Armstrong cited the positions of S.A.'s medical staff in his ruling. According to USA Today, he said her medical doctors and psychiatrist described her as in denial about the risks of dying if she did not eat. He also found that S.A.'s parents were acting in her best interests by petitioning for guardianship and cited a journal article that reported artificial feeding could be successful in early-stage severe anorexia cases like S.A.'s.[6]

Armstrong presided over a similar case in 2016. A 29-year-old woman, identified as "A.G.," was involuntarily committed to Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital and assigned a temporary guardian by the state after she refused to seek treatment for her eating disorder. The temporary guardian, attorney Susan Joseph, obtained a court order to use artificial feeding to treat A.G., but A.G. opposed the treatment. Joseph, A.G.'s mother, her attorney, members of the medical staff, and members of the bioethics committee at Morristown Medical Center ultimately concluded that A.G. was capable of making her own medical decisions, and Joseph requested that the original order to use artificial feeding be amended.[7]

The state, which operated Greystone, objected to amending the order. Citing testimony from an eating disorder specialist and psychiatrists at Greystone who had examined A.G., the state argued A.G. was not capable of making informed decisions about her treatment.[7]

Unlike in the case of S.A., Armstrong concluded that A.G. was competent to make her own medical decisions. He said her testimony was "forthright, responsive, knowing, intelligent, voluntary, steadfast and credible" and that, during an interview, she had "expressed an unequivocal desire to accept palliative care as suggested by her treating physician and the bioethics committee at Morristown Medical Center [rather than continue with medical interventions]. This decision was made by A.G. with a clear understanding that death was or could be the possible outcome."[8]

See also

External links

Footnotes