End-of-life bill provides protection to vulnerable people who are unable to make decisions on their own

As a writer of the Minnesota End-of-Life Options Act, I have been prompted to make a correction to a couple of misinformation conveyed by Minnesota State Sens. Abeler and Hoffman in their most recent column. The point is not to say that they do not raise legitimate concerns with respect to protections for weak people and against bureaucratic mercilessness. The point is to say that those concerns, as well as, others have been seizing my attention, and hence why the End-of-Life Options Act was written as it did.
Medical aid has been authorized in my bill in dying, which for over two decades has been available in Oregon and is now made available in 9 states, as well as, the District of Columbia.
Medical aid in dying facilitates those adults who are terminally ill and have a sound mind with the capacity of making their own health care decisions the choice of a prescription medication which is helpful in bringing about a peaceful death.
The main intention is allowing patients in avoiding protracted suffering linked with their disease if they so decide.
Under my bill, in order to qualify for aid-in-dying medication, there is a requirement of a terminally ill person to have a half-year prognosis and must be capable of self-administering the medication. It is irrelevant whether or whether not that terminally ill person has some sort of disability since the criteria of the law are equally applicable to abled and disabled alike.
The similar principles which drive the disability rights community; dignity, autonomy, as well as, respect are the basis of the movement for end-of-life options. My bill gives protection to vulnerable patients who do not have the capacity of making an independent decision while empowering those who do have.