Words have meaning — and it varies

The “semantic debate” about Minnesota’s End of Life Options Act is worth having. Semantics deals with the relationship between the definition of words and how different people interpret their meaning. In the realm of death and dying, we should acknowledge that language cannot speak with exactitude to every case, culture, faith, and person.

As a writer and suicide survivor, I have far too much experience making the attempt.

My first exposure to suicide was as a child discovering a neighbor’s body in his driveway, a rifle at his side. In the language of the times, he died while “cleaning his gun.” My great grandmother drowned at a family picnic. For many years, “drowning” softened the intentionality of her death.

My father’s death at age 58 shocked an entire community. His faith had for centuries called suicide a mortal sin and in a previous decade would have denied him a Catholic funeral mass. He received a service, but scarcely a personal mention from the presiding priest who knew him.

These deaths were not inevitable. Proper mental health treatment might have averted suicidal impulses and meant more good years of life. But the language of shame, sin, and euphemism offered no respite from their psychological pain or comfort to the survivors.

Language in the End of Life Options Act does not encourage suicide. It offers personal agency over how individuals can face death. It brings together family, caregivers, friends, and spiritual advisors in support of this profound and final choice.

Charlie Quimby, Golden Valley

The word that matters

Kudos to the Pioneer Press and reporter Alex Derosier for finding a new way to look at one of the most important bills facing the Minnesota Legislature this year (“Aid in dying or physician-assisted suicide? As MN lawmakers weigh bill, advocates and opponents choose different terms”, March 10).

It’s true that the terminology for the process by which a terminally ill person can end their suffering with medication has changed: from “death with dignity” in Oregon, to “medical aid in dying” in some other states, to “end of life options” in Minnesota.

To me the one simple word that matters is “choose.” If I am suffering from one of the many diseases or conditions that modern medicine has not yet conquered, I want to choose how and when I die, with the help of a knowledgeable and compassionate medical provider. Those who oppose end-of-life options seek to deny me that simple option.

My body, my relationship with my doctor, my dying, my choice. Our DFL majority has made it clear that body autonomy and choice matters when it comes to reproductive health. Why not at the end of life?

Patricia Ohmans, St. Paul

Words to scare

Words like “suicide” and “slippery slope” are being used to stop action on approval of the End-of-Life Options Act under consideration by the Minnesota Legislature (“Words matter in ‘End of Life’ debate,” March 10). Once again, a minority of the populace is playing with words to ensure others don’t have choice.

New words come into being every day. Words change meaning over time. When someone uses the word “suicide” most of us think of those who take their life for reasons such as depression or mental illness. Taken before their time, they were people who could have been helped.

But isn’t that different from a person, who in the very last days of life, wishes to be released from the rounds of hopeless treatments, the hospital bed, the drugs, the pain, the suffering? That person wants to go home and be surrounded by family and be released from this world. There is no choice for life. If they could, they would hang on to life. Shouldn’t this have its own word?

We’ll hear consternation that such a bill will lead to killing the disabled, or encouraging suicide. No, it won’t. It’s been legal in other states for years with no “slippery slope.” They are just using words that have no meaning except to scare. It’s a useful tactic, but it is not based in fact.

“Choice” seems to be the operative word when discussing the End-of-Life Options Act. Let us ensure this choice for all Minnesotans.

Mary Alice Divine, White Bear Lake

Monumental trivializing

While I appreciate reporter Alex Derosier spotlighting the fast-growing movement in Minnesota to legalize medical-aid-in-dying for terminally ill people, I wonder at the focus on the argument over terms: suicide versus medical aid in dying. The ongoing semantic dispute between proponents and opponents of the bill may be relevant because words do matter, but the argument monumentally trivializes the circumstances of people facing an imminent, horrific death. The terminal oral cancer sufferer who no longer allows his grandchildren even into the house because of the awful stench from his externalized tumors … the dying ovarian cancer patient whose fluids and bowel matter leak and flow between disintegrating bodily canals … the ALS patient who is drowning in her own saliva because she can no longer swallow.

That opponents of the law — including some bioethics professors — who are not seated at that hellish bedside have the arrogance and time to advance intellectual arguments over semantics, is an insult and time-waster for every one of these dying people. To leisurely opine that such patients are “engaging in the dictionary definition of suicide,” and that “calling it aid is a euphemism that obfuscates the seriousness of the choice,” indicates a grotesque misunderstanding of the word “choice.” These are dying people who were robbed of choice on the day of their diagnosis. They are running out of time. Let’s restore to those who wish it one final choice: the grace and peace of a good death surrounded by those they love.

Tara Flaherty Guy, Roseville

‘Those of us living nearby object’

The University of St. Thomas intends to build a 5,000-seat arena on their campus in a residential area without providing commensurate parking capacity. Those of us living nearby object.

As U.S.T.’s own transportation study blithely noted, the university’s parking shortfall will be alleviated by parking in our residential neighborhood. When a private institution faces a shortfall, is it right for it to just help itself to a public resource?

St. Thomas actually is going backward in that regard. This and other recent construction on south campus sacrificed 392 parking spaces. The University has not offered to increase the capacity of their parking ramp to make up the difference nor provide for their additional demand.

Cutting parking requirements is often defended as a motivation to use public transit. In this case, an alternative to waiting outside for the bus is readily at hand – just drive to the game and park in our neighborhood! Offering the public transit option is an empty excuse.

Residents living near campus are themselves criticized for moving to the neighborhood knowing that U.S.T. is there. But is that an adequate excuse for bad policies? Further, many neighbors arrived when the campus was a medium-sized and stable school. It was in recent years that the institution changed into a growth-oriented Division 1 campus crammed onto a small footprint. Neither St. Paul nor St. Thomas asked surrounding neighborhoods to approve such a strategic change.

In short, St. Thomas has offered nothing to mitigate the problem that the university itself is causing.

The University of St. Thomas Web page claims “All for the common good.”

Really?

Joel Clemmer, St. Paul

Like they have a lock on democracy

I am really tired of the Democrats’ mantra of “save democracy.” Like they have a lock on democracy.

Elections should be about ideas and policies. Pick the candidates who support your ideas (at least mostly) and vote for them.

The polls I have seen about voters’ concerns never list democracy. It’s immigration, inflation, crime and so on. In fact, given the dysfunction in our current government, I don’t think that “democracy” is a very good sell at all.

Bruce Montgomery, St. Paul

Respect their service and sacrifice

On page A12 of the March 13 paper you see the picture of Shannon Gooden on the left and Paul Elmstrand, Matthew Ruge, Adam Finseth on the right. This is a huge tragedy yet there was no worldwide outrage at this injustice. These three men loved their families and the community they served. They were selfless in their service to the community to the length of giving their lives for it. This is the second tragedy that virtue, love, and service are not valued and celebrated in our world.

Veterans, military, service providers, clergy, medical personnel, police, state troopers, firefighters, paramedics, multiple morally upstanding citizens every day make sacrifices, sometimes including their lives, to protect us and provide for us. We need to respect, honor and be grateful for their sacrifice and service to our communities. Give back to your community in a positive way to honor these men and their families.

Kathleen Hoffman, Hudson

Good. And we need to do more

I’ve owned a house in St. Paul for 33 years, and am proud to call this city my home. Most of all I like our many neighborhoods, the mix of races, ethnicity, income levels and languages. I believe that all of us can live together and thrive.

Mayor Carter’s State of the City speech underscored how a well-focused administration, along with a strong City Council (past and present), can put us on a path to equity, growth and opportunity. Current city programs have improved safety and reduced crime, encouraged at least six major housing/commercial developments, provided more youth opportunities, and laid plans for revitalizing downtown.

But we need to do more. Several of my long-term St. Paul friends have had to move out for lack of affordable housing, We need to push for more at all levels and discourage absentee owners and investment-minded landlords who only want to make high profits off our city. Our citizens need and deserve stability.

We need to attack climate change with more urgency, by weatherizing and decarbonizing our residences as well as our commercial buildings.

And yes, we need revenue to make all we want happen. We have been fortunate to have more money from the state and feds, as well as generous contributions from local foundations. But I also want to congratulate Mayor Carter for proposing the 1-percent St. Paul sales tax and then spearheading the campaign for its passage. As a resident, I look forward to enjoying the rewards of this tax in park upgrades and street improvements.

It is my hope that all St. Paul residents take heart from our current leadership, share a justified pride in the achievements of our city, and continue to contribute their time, talent, and money to build strong, stable neighborhoods that serve us all.

Duane Johnson, St. Paul

Some lament Cousins’ departure

Some are lamenting Kirk Cousins leaving the Vikings, but over six years, at $185 million, Kirk gave us one playoff win. The goal is the Super Bowl, not just barely making the playoffs. Harrison Smith, a should-be Hall of Famer, took a pay cut two years in a row to be a Viking. Cousins instead admitted tampering with Atlanta early in negotiations, and got them to buy that he’s next year’s Tom Brady. They guaranteed Kirk $100 million — no matter what. I doubt Kirk guaranteed any playoff wins. Without that ridiculous salary hanging around the Vikings’ neck to a 36-year-old with an Achilles tear repair, Kwesi, Kevin O’Connell, and Brian Flores have been busy putting together a stellar new team with RB, Edges, DL, OL, and kicker — with more to come — along with a new franchise QB in the draft that could actually take us to the Super Bowl. Thank you, Kirk!

Geoffrey Saign, St. Paul

A question regarding Ms. Greene

Marjorie Taylor Greene recently Interrupted President Biden’s State of the Union address to demand his response to the killing of Laken Riley, a 22-year-old nursing student who was murdered last month allegedly by an undocumented immigrant released on parole. As he should, Biden immediately expressed his condolences to the Riley family and decried the culture of violence in our country which leads to so many senseless deaths.

My question is this: How many hundreds (thousands?) of deaths of innocent people, including children, are Ms. Greene and her MAGA cohorts responsible for because they continue to kowtow to the gun lobby and refuse to support even the most reasonable levels of gun control?

Rick Gavin, Eagan

Catch and keep?

The DNR is announcing new limits for walleyes on Mille Lacs, this has awakened a pet peeve of mine about the importance that some fisher folk give to sport fish over game fish. Most Minnesotans like to eat what they catch, namely walleyes. The muskie people return what they catch, those released muskies possibly to go on and eat the walleyes that we like to eat. I know of few recipes for the eating of the muskie, although I’ve been told that it forms the basis for a Wisconsin Bouillabaisse.

What if the DNR would put a moratorium on “catch and release” for the muskie population for several weeks or a month on Lake Mille Lacs and offer prizes for the largest and the most caught?

This would accomplish two things; the resorts on the lake would prosper, and the post mortems on the catch would tell us if the muskie is eating more walleye then the rest of us.

Tom Obst, Wyoming

Related Articles

Behind the chair for 60 years: Twin Cities barber reminisces on clipping locks, telling stories

New program gives St. Paul-Ramsey County sex assault victims more options — and control

Crime, housing, education and more: Here’s how St. Paul compares to a decade ago

Photos: St. Patrick’s Day parade in St. Paul brought the luck and the wind

Joe Soucheray: ‘If you would shoot at a cop, you would shoot at anybody’