Readers Write: End-of-Life Options Act, border policy, 2040 plan, dogs

Opinion editor’s note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Recent Star Tribune stories profiling people asking Minnesota legislators to pass physician-assisted suicide are sincere and heartfelt. But rather than making the case for it, their stories instead tell us what we should do under current law to better help individuals facing the end of their life with a path toward a truly compassionate and dignified end. Under current law, we have the right to a legally binding end-of-life directive, a power of attorney/medical decisionmaking directive, the right to hospice and palliative care, and the right to direct our own care. If these rights were better known and executed, physician-assisted suicide would not even be a consideration.

Also, legislators should know that the Minnesota bill lacks the “safeguard” of a legitimate waiting period and allows nurse practitioners to prescribe lethal drugs, even though Medicare prohibits them from qualifying patients for hospice, which is also based on a six-month prognosis. All doctors and APRNs are required to offer physician-assisted suicide as a treatment option as part of a new standard of care, which some patients may feel is coercive.

I say “no, thank you” to physician-assisted suicide, and so should our legislators. Let’s enact laws that help us better care for one another.

Nancy Utoft, Woodbury

The writer is the president of the Minnesota Alliance for Ethical Healthcare.

The bill, which has been endorsed by conservative-leaning border control agents, could be hailed by Republicans as a “win” for our country, as it certainly provides for stronger enforcement and more resources dedicated to controlling illegal immigration. But very few of today’s Republican leadership want what’s in the best interest of the country. They want whatever Trump says, and in this situation, as any other, Trump’s whims rule.

Trump and his MAGA leaders in Congress “killed” the bill, saying it wasn’t “enough.” Isn’t $20 billion for immigration enforcement, thousands more officers to evaluate asylum claims, hundreds more Border Patrol agents, and helping stop the flow of fentanyl substantially better than nothing at all? And even if they wanted “more,” that could still be argued for another day.

The refusal by Republicans to back the bipartisan border deal isn’t about the merits of the bill; it’s about Trump’s ego, as he wouldn’t be getting the credit. Trump and his Republican allies are the party of “won’t,” and in this situation like so many others, they would rather do nothing. Biden and the Democrats are the party of “will,” as in Biden’s own recurring refrain, “We can do it together.”

Lisa Wersal, Vadnais Heights

•••

Biden now threatens to implement executive actions to help manage some level of order at the border, so what is he waiting for, as he has already had three years to do this? The Senate bill initiative was inadequate in that it would not have met all the requirements of a broader House bill on the issue. As I see it, we can wait until January 2025 for Trump to re-enact his program, or simply solve this now by passing the broad House bill while giving Trump full credit for its passage and admitting that Trump did a far better job during his four years managing the border issue. This might also allow passage of funding for Ukraine as a standalone bill, and perhaps Israel and others as a third bill. Biden offered to join Trump in creating some level of order at the border — well, do it!

Michael Tillemans, Minneapolis

Minneapolis used its 2040 Comprehensive Plan update as one would use a baseball bat to swat a mosquito (“From an urban-planning perspective, 2040 dispute is mystifying, worrisome,” Opinion Exchange, March 5). The density increases in the plan amendment went way beyond the forecasts set by the Metropolitan Council as guidance for plan preparation. Those forecasts were sent to all communities so that they would know what metropolitan systems (sanitary sewers and transportation, primarily) would be available to accommodate expected growth in the next 20 years.

The Metropolitan Council should have rejected the Minneapolis plan because it exceeded the Metropolitan Council’s population forecasts and would put stress on the metropolitan systems that couldn’t be met. Instead, it took an expensive lawsuit to address Minneapolis’ density overreach.

The Minnesota American Planning Association, of which I was once an officer, should not be afraid of lawsuits that would interrupt its plan updates. There need not be full-scale environmental impact statements or Alternative Urban Areawide Review studies to justify the incremental changes prescribed by the Metropolitan Council. The wolf is not really at the doors of all the communities in the metro area. However, it is growling at the door in Minneapolis. Minneapolis, not the state Legislature, needs to fix its problem.

•••

In “From an urban-planning perspective, 2040 dispute is mystifying, worrisome,” PeggySue Imihy Bean misses the original sin of the Minneapolis 2040 Plan. The way regional planning works is that the Metropolitan Council sets out population targets for each city, so the region can grow rationally. By State Statute 473.175, cities must create long-range plans, then zoning and investment plans, in conformance with these regional targets. According to the targets set by the Metropolitan Council, Minneapolis was supposed to plan for 15% growth. Minneapolis planned for 75% growth. It planned to take almost all of the growth in the region in the next 20 years all by itself. This was wildly out of conformance with the regional plan and should have been rejected by the council. But bafflingly, the council didn’t do that. If it had done its job, we would not be where we are today. We would have had a plan that did much less harm to the environment and not be having to debate the fine line of how much environmental harm is too much.

Carol Becker, Minneapolis

I’m writing to thank you for the article “Don’t skip your dog’s walk: Here’s why” (March 3). My neck is already feeling better as I am not getting pulled away from all of the important information I gather through my nose. In just the last four days I’ve noticed these long lingering walks, and I have met so many of my canine friends on a more personal level. I also really enjoy having more time to spend outside with my owner on these unusually warm days.