Readers Write (March 18): Assisted suicide, Mike Freeman's decision on grand juries, Minnesota's business climate, veterans' health care

I must have missed something. When was it I sold my mind, soul and body ("Emotions derail a life-and-death bill," March 17) to the Legislature? If I wish to end my life, it should be no one's business but my own (and sometimes my doctor's).

Regardless of the reason (there can be unbearable emotional agony just as well as physical), I can find nothing — public or private — that says I gave up that right.

The folks in the Legislature should stop agonizing over this bill, as they have no right to even consider it. Let's end this!

• • •

Unfortunately, multiple misunderstandings surrounded the Minnesota Compassionate Care Act proposed in Minnesota and withdrawn for the year after a hearing on Wednesday. First, the conditions of the bill are rarely met. The proposal stated that an adult patient could receive a prescription for life-ending medications only when the patient requested the medications after two physicians had given the patient a diagnosis of six months or less to live because of a terminal disease. Also, the medications were always to be self-administered. Participation in this end-of-life program was to be fully optional at any time for any patient who has received the life-ending medications. Physician participation was also optional.

The Compassionate Care Act is a near copy of the final Death with Dignity Act that has been in place in Oregon for nearly 20 years. There have never been changes to the protocol. There have been no extensions of the act.

Few patients choose life-ending prescriptions. In Oregon in 2014, three deaths in 1,000 were ended with life-ending prescriptions. For the very few people who carefully meet the protocol and make a personal choice of taking life-ending medications, the Compassionate Care Act should be there as an end-of-life option.

Make no mistake. The misinformation campaign mounted against the Minnesota Compassionate Care Act is all about power and control. Nothing is more personal than individuals' right to terminate their own lives on their own terms. The meddlesome, if well-meaning, interventionist argument is nothing more than an attempt to wrest control of important personal decisions away from the affected individual. The only thing that is accomplished by denying access to physician-assisted transition is the absence of the compassionate care of a trained doctor. Respecting the inherent worth and dignity of each individual requires us to provide the best care in the least-restrictive circumstance, which includes the option to terminate one's own life. Everything else is cruel abstraction.

I find it worrisome that Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman has decided to suspend grand jury proceedings regarding the Jamar Clark tragedy (front page, March 17) and in future shootings involving police officers. In my opinion, it sets a precedent that will only serve to deny legal protections to those who enforce the law — namely, the police. If Freeman had decided to do this with a civilian accused of committing a crime, the outrage would be heard statewide. This is nothing more than a political move. The legal process must apply to all. If not, it is rendered meaningless.

• • •

I came of age in the '60s, when activists were taking to the streets on an almost-daily basis seeking solutions to major issues facing the country: ending the injustice of racial segregation and disengaging us from what had become viewed as an unjust war. Many of the demonstrations grew ugly and created great rifts in our society. But these were causes that would have positively affected millions of lives, and somehow it all seemed worthwhile.

The more recent protests revolving around concern over excessive police violence, especially as it affects minorities, also have the chance to affect millions of lives and, if they have positive effects for all, are certainly worthwhile. Questions need to be asked, however, when there is so much concentration on a specific case, such as has happened with Jamar Clark.

One certainly hopes that Mr. Freeman and others in similar positions are asking themselves these questions and preparing for the possible answers.

As co-owner with my husband of Sen Yai Sen Lek Thai restaurant in northeast Minneapolis, I am compelled to speak up and participate in the debate this year surrounding state taxes — specifically, proposed tax cuts for businesses.

The restaurant is our first business, started from the ground up in fall 2008. We live in the neighborhood, and our children attend Minneapolis public schools nearby. We are part of the fabric of this community and care deeply about its future.

Like many small businesses, we care very much about our employees beyond the labor they contribute to our company. Unfortunately, our small business doesn't have the financial capacity — the financial scale — to offer the kinds of employee benefits that large organizations do. Yet working for Sen Yai Sen Lek should not mean that our employees have access to fewer important supports for themselves and their families, such as affordable child care, health care or paid family leave.

The proposed business property tax cut would not have a measurable impact on my business operations. However, by combining my financial resources with others in the form of business property taxes, Minnesota can ensure a more stable and resilient workforce. As a business owner and a citizen, it's important to me that the state uses our collective dollars to make investments in infrastructure, high-quality education and other supports for workers at my restaurant and for the members of my community.

In response to the March 12 commentary "Forget the VA: We can help heal trauma of PTSD," I applaud any efforts to help our veterans — be they within the VA or the community. At the same time, I feel that our services at the Minneapolis VA were mischaracterized in the article. The Department of Veterans Affairs in general, and the Minneapolis VA specifically, offer a host of treatments for post-traumatic stress disorder. Each case receives individualized treatment from experienced providers. In a survey of veterans in our PTSD clinic, more than 98 percent said they would recommend our clinic to another veteran. The treatments we offer do not have higher rates of dropout than eye-movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR), as the commentary claimed. A recent analysis cited in a clinical publication of more than 40 studies involving 1,850 patients found no differences in dropout rates between EMDR and other treatment approaches, including prolonged-exposure therapy and cognitive-processing therapy, both of which are offered throughout the VA, including in Minneapolis. I believe our veterans are best served when the community and the VA work together to meet all of their needs, and I'd like to thank all of the providers working to care for them.