Opinion editor’s note: Published in Star Tribune Opinion letter We hear from readers online and in print every day.Click to contribute here.
•••
A recent Star Tribune article profiling those who are asking Minnesota lawmakers to allow physician-assisted suicide is honest and heartfelt. But rather than advocating for it, their story is about what we can do under current law to ensure that people facing the end of life have a truly compassionate and dignified end. It will tell you how. Under current law, we have legally binding end-of-life instructions, powers of attorney/medical decision-making instructions, the right to hospice and palliative care, and the right to direct our own care. have. If these rights were better known and enforced, physician-assisted suicide would not even be considered.
Minnesota’s bill also lacks the “safety net” of a reasonable waiting period, even though it also prohibits Medicare from admitting patients to hospice based on a six-month prognosis. Lawmakers should know that nurses are allowed to prescribe lethal drugs. All physicians and APRNs are required to offer physician-assisted suicide as a treatment option as part of the new standard of care, but some patients may feel this is coercive.
I say “no, thank you” to physician-assisted suicide, and so should members of Congress. Let’s enact laws that help us care for each other better.
Nancy Utoft, Woodbury
The author is president of the Minnesota Ethical Medical Alliance.
border control policy
Republicans got everything they asked for, but they said no.
The difference between the approaches of President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump at the southern border could not be more clear (“Biden, Trump take the fight to the border,” March 1). Biden said Republicans and Democrats will work together to pass the bipartisan border security bill passed in the Senate.
The bill is supported by conservative border officials and has been hailed by Republicans as a “victory” for our country, as it will ensure increased enforcement and increased resources for cracking down on illegal immigration. There is a possibility that But few in today’s Republican leadership want what is in the best interest of the country. They want whatever Trump says, and Trump’s whims rule in this situation, as in any other.
President Trump and MAGA leaders in Congress “repeated” the bill, saying it did not go “enough.” Isn’t $20 billion for immigration enforcement, thousands of police officers to review asylum claims, hundreds of Border Patrol agents, and help stemming the flow of fentanyl better than doing nothing? I wonder? And even if they wanted “more”, that could be a discussion for another day.
Republicans’ refusal to support a bipartisan border deal is not about the bill’s merits. It’s about President Trump’s ego, and he will never be judged. Mr. Trump and his Republican allies are “no-doers” and, like many others, would prefer to do nothing in this situation. Biden and the Democratic Party are the party of “will,” as Biden himself has repeatedly said, “Together we can do it.”
Lisa Versal, Vadnais Heights
•••
The Biden administration has been interested in alleviating issues at the southern border for more than three years, doing nothing, and suddenly showing interest now, with a new election on the horizon. Governors in states along the border are sending large numbers of migrants north and are desperately trying to get help on the issue. Governors and mayors complain that they are incapable of managing and caring for the growing number of people entering their cities, but they continue to fall on deaf ears. Only now is Biden promoting a desperate attempt to do something to appease voters while blaming others for doing nothing. In fairness, Congress continues to be complicit in this, doing little to speed up immigration processing, grant green cards for work, or improve paths to citizenship. .
Biden is now threatening to take executive action to help manage some degree of order at the border, but he’s already been given three years to do so, so what is he waiting for? Or? The Senate bill initiative fell short in that it did not meet all the requirements of the broader House bill on the issue. My view is that Trump should either wait until January 2025 to re-enact his plan, or give Trump full credit for passing the House bill and do much better than he did during his presidency. They could fix the problem now by passing the House bill, acknowledging the work done. I have been in charge of border issues for four years. This could allow funding for Ukraine to be passed as a standalone bill, and perhaps in a third bill for countries such as Israel. Biden offered to work with Trump to establish some order at the border – Okay, let’s do it!
Michael Tielemans, Minneapolis
2040 plan
Member of Parliament.need to fix my own mess
Minneapolis used the latest information on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan like swatting mosquitoes with a baseball bat (“From an urban planning perspective, the conflict of 2040 is puzzling and alarming,” briefing session) , March 5). The increase in density in the revised plan far exceeded the projections set by the City Council to guide its development. These forecasts were sent to all communities to know what metropolitan systems (mainly sewer and transportation) are available to accommodate expected growth over the next 20 years. Ta.
The Metropolitan Council should have rejected the Minneapolis Plan because it would exceed the Council’s population projections and burden a metropolitan system that it could not meet. Instead, it filed expensive lawsuits to address Minneapolis’ overcrowding.
The American Planning Association of Minnesota, of which I once served on the board, should not fear lawsuits that prevent plan updates. A full-fledged environmental impact report or review study of an entire alternative city area is not required to justify the incremental changes prescribed by the metropolitan council. In fact, wolves are not at the entrance to every community in the metropolitan area. But it’s roaring on your doorstep in Minneapolis. The problem needs to be solved in Minneapolis, not the state Legislature.
Perry Sauvig, St. Anthony
•••
Peggy Sue Immihy Bean misses the original sin of the Minneapolis 2040 plan in “From an Urban Planning Perspective, the 2040 Conflict Is Mysterious and Alarming.” The way regional planning works is that metropolitan councils set population goals for each city, allowing regions to grow in a rational manner. State Law 473.175 requires cities to develop long-term plans in accordance with these regional goals, and then develop zoning and investment plans. According to the goals set by the Metropolitan Council, the city of Minneapolis was supposed to plan for its growth by 15%. Minneapolis planned for her 75% growth. It was planned to single-handedly finance almost all of the region’s growth over the next 20 years. This was significantly inconsistent with the local plan and should have been rejected by the council. But inexplicably, the city council didn’t do that. If it had played its part, we wouldn’t be here today. We could have come up with a plan that was far less harmful to the environment, and we wouldn’t have had to argue about the fine line between how much harm is done to the environment.
Carol Becker, Minneapolis
Dog-walking
Just the push she needed
Thank you for the article “Never miss walking your dog: Why” (March 3rd). My neck is already feeling better now that I’m no longer distracted from the important information I gather through my nose. In just his four days here, I’ve found my walks to be longer and I’ve met so many more canine friends on a more personal level. On unusually warm days, I get to spend more time outside with my owner, which is a lot of fun.
Portia (dog) being helped by Barbara Donaghy (owner), Minneapolis
