Opinion editor’s note: Published in Star Tribune Opinion letter We hear from readers online and in print every day.Click to contribute here.
•••
I’m replying to an article titled “Does assisted dying put some people at risk?” (April 14).
First of all, the position that we are taking cues from Canada as a province or country when it comes to national or provincial laws and legislation is ridiculous. Our laws are not guided or determined by what Canada does or does not do. If that were the case, many of our laws on a variety of issues, including health care, gun control, immigration, and more, would look very different. The United States and the state of Minnesota are not Canada, and the state will enact laws that meet the needs of its residents and are consistent with their will.
I also find the argument against medical assistance in dying very ironic in the name of protecting vulnerable people. According to the dictionary, vulnerability is “the quality or condition of being exposed to the possibility of physical or mental attack or harm.” I believe that denying dying patients choice, say, and control over their final days, making them powerless over their own bodies, and forcing them to suffer against their will actually makes them extremely vulnerable. I would like to argue that. By not passing this bill, the most vulnerable will actually continue to suffer. Who is protecting them? Your last day on earth shouldn’t be, and doesn’t have to be, your worst day. We can do better for terminally ill Minnesotans!
Françoise Willems-Shirley, Hopkins
•••
Kathy Ware (in “Does Aid in Dying Put People in Danger?”) asks what would happen if states passed laws allowing medical aid in dying and her vulnerable son, Kylen, died. I’m wondering if that’s the case. She wonders if the guardian would decide to end Kairen’s life because it would be a compassionate act. In other words, would the guardian euthanize Kairen? This question demonstrates a complete and utter misunderstanding of the proposed Minnesota End-of-Life Options Act currently being considered in the state Legislature. Her two parts of the bill make it illegal to apply to her son, Kailen. First, a person must have the mental capacity to choose to use medical assistance in dying and must be able to self-administer drugs to end suffering. Can Kylen meet any of these criteria? The 10 states that currently have medical assistance in dying laws are clear and precise. She must have two doctors agree that the deceased was an adult, had less than six months to live, was mentally competent, and was able to: Administer yourself with life-ending drugs. Moreover, the “slippery slope” that opponents always refer to is belied by the fact that in the nearly 30 years since this type of law was enacted in the United States, there has been no evidence of abuse, and certainly no movement toward euthanasia. Masu. I would like Mr. Ware to actually take the time to read the proposed bill (HF 1930) and, after reading it, explain how it applies to Kairen.
David Sturgeon, Tonka Bay
•••
Enough of the “slippery slope” debate when it comes to medical assistance in dying. Under Minnesota’s proposed law, only mentally competent adults with less than six months to live would have this option, and they would have to take the medication themselves. The bill’s authors have carefully crafted a narrow scenario in which capable adults faced with an imminent and tragic death will have some control over their exit from this life. Obviously, the young people featured in this story are not subject to this option: Does assisted dying put some people at risk?
If future legislation proposes that only those suffering from mental illness or those with disabilities have access to this option when parents decide, I will join Mr. Ware in opposing these bad ideas. You will. But now, if hospice care isn’t enough to ease the pain of a brain tumor, there are capable adults like Nancy Youden who are “desperate for the option of dying peacefully in their sleep.” Will Ware tell Wooden to “cheer up, maybe it’s not so bad”? Doesn’t she think Wooden also deserves sympathy?
Although Ms. Ware’s son’s health condition is tragic, I know that we all admire Mr. Ware’s generous and compassionate care for Kailen. Her concerns about what his care will be like if he can’t help himself are valid. As the baby boomer generation ages, there is a need for people to take care of people around them. Perhaps the government should subsidize wages to ensure proper care for the elderly and disabled. But these separate issues should not undermine the autonomy each of us should ultimately have over our bodies and our lives.
Jeff Naylor, Minneapolis
Ho Chi Minh City Governance
Try a radically different model
A Star Tribune editorial opposing proposed changes to Hennepin County Medical Center’s governing board says it opposes “selfish special interests” and specifically nurses who provide bedside care in Ho Chi Minh City. (‘Don’t Bomb Ho Chi Minh City Governance’, April 14). I’m not saying anything bad about anyone, but I think if you had an accident and ended up in the emergency department or intensive care unit in Ho Chi Minh City, you would take a different stance. In hospitals, the quality of care is determined almost entirely by what nurses can do for patients. I worked as an inpatient social worker in Ho Chi Minh City for 21 years and retired in 2015. Staffing shortages are the way hospitals are run in Ho Chi Minh City, affecting all departments in Ho Chi Minh City.
Instead of working against nurses, the Star Tribune editorial board should suggest that Ho Chi Minh City is the perfect place for German industrial-style co-management. Rather than have the state Legislature rewrite the rules prohibiting “selfish special interests” to force control of hospitals and clinics to be handed over to the Hennepin County Board, the state Legislature will form half of Ho Chi Minh City’s board of directors. It should be stipulated that An elected representative of a labor union. Why not? It works in Germany.
Brian McNeil, Minneapolis
spirituality
A glimpse of the mystery
Although I admire Peter Leshack’s ability to draw me into nature, it is his writings on religion that prompted my comment (“Serpent in the Mist,” Exchange, April 14 Day). He rejects his previous religious beliefs. So do I, but my reasons are far beyond his. Like Reshak, I deplore Trump’s grossly immoral church, but I also appreciate the power of true religious faith to foster human well-being.
My faith is based on my experience of the inner realm, and there is a wealth of rational evidence to support it. Jesus was an extraordinary spiritual leader and human being. I do not believe that he is God, nor do I believe that his death saved the world, nor do I believe that he will come again to, in Reshak’s words, “administer Armageddon.”
Quantum science teaches us that conscious observation creates physical reality. Physicists say this in books and articles. I interpret this as confirmation of my belief that an inner immaterial realm underlies the outer physical universe.
Different religions have different ideas about their inner reality. We don’t know, but there is no doubt that life does not end with physical death, as near-death experiences prove. I like a quote from mythologist Joseph Campbell that describes what we call “God,” the transcendent mystery.
Janet Blonigen Clancy, Avon, Minn.;
