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

•••

Minneapolis City Council members: Please vote no to the proposed rideshare ordinance.

I am legally blind. Neither my wife nor I drive. We use Uber and Lyft for shopping and appointments. We are retired and live on a fixed income that is already threatened by inflation. This proposed city ordinance would present a hardship for us. I expressed this when I attended a committee hearing on the subject last week.

We have been using rideshares for the past five years. Our ride cost has been fairly steady, but it appears that Uber and Lyft are taking an increasingly larger share per ride. If the government can legislate how much a company charges, why can't it legislate how much a company profits?

Our experiences with drivers have been very positive. They are courteous and hardworking, so it alarms us that they claim to not be making a living wage. Now I read that San Francisco is allowing autonomous ridesharing vehicles. I hope the drivers are preparing for this industry shift.

KENNETH AND VERA SMITH, Minneapolis

•••

Last night I attended a conversation about the Minneapolis police policies, and we all were able to express our concerns in small group conversations. Today I read that Uber and Lyft rides may go away in Minneapolis, as the City Council is considering a driver pay ordinance.

I am a senior citizen who used Uber over 50 times this past year, especially during the very slick and icy winter, to go to my various meetings and outings. I also use our buses, but not very often. I have wonderful conversations with rideshare drivers, most of whom are immigrants. Many of my friends have moved to senior or assisted-living facilities like Episcopal Homes or Amira and they are very limited in transportation options or do not drive. They depend on Uber and Lyft, and can call and be picked up in a few minutes. Sometimes with other options they have to schedule a medical appointment a week in advance.

City Council members, please hold conversations with the people who depend on Uber and Lyft and the drivers. Other transportation options for seniors are very expensive.

I took an Uber to the State Capitol and watched Gov. Tim Walz sign many bills. My driver told me to please encourage Walz to sign their bill. Well, Walz did not and will study this issue until the next legislative session. There were many Uber and Lyft drivers there protesting that day.

I beg the City Council members to really research this idea and be open to the concerns of both the drivers and the people who depend on their safe and convenient services.

KAY KESSEL, Richfield

During the pandemic, the breakdown of "the sacred relationship between patients and providers" ("In defense of physicians who treated COVID with alternative approaches," Opinion Exchange, Aug. 15) had little to do with evolving protocols from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and more to do with the profane relationship between the public and doctor Donald Trump, who recommended strange but not wonderful treatments (e.g., hydroxychloroquine) and dissed wearing masks, as did resident-in-training Mike Pence.

N95 masks and well-tested vaccines did help, but by then many people were grasping at quack cures, having lost confidence in both the CDC and their own doctors.

Most important, trying alternative therapies is not comparable to searching for relief from cancer. The big difference is that cancer is not contagious. During a pandemic, experimenting with questionable treatments rather than following a proven path puts not only you at risk but anyone with whom you come in contact.

ROBERTA MERRYMAN, St. Louis Park

•••

Defending COVID-19 alternative therapies, Dr. Mary Paquette advocated for the importance of physician autonomy and the preservation of the "sacred" patient-physician relationship. The primary duty of any physician is "first, do no harm." Providing medical care proven to be ineffective against COVID-19 is to do harm because the patient is deprived of the best-known current treatments. Physician autonomy should not allow for administering treatments proven to be ineffective. This problem only exists because medical ethics boards do not take seriously their responsibility to protect the public.

HARVEY LEVITON, New Hope

•••

I am writing with wholehearted agreement with Dr. Mary Paquette in her counterpoint piece. I am a physician with nearly 50 years of experience in family medicine and addiction medicine. Over many years, I have developed an awe and increasing awareness of the complexity of the human body. I have come to realize that much more is unknown about life and "the science" than is known. I have learned that practicing medicine is an art.

The key is to listen to the patient. Every patient must be treated as an individual. The pros and cons and risks and benefits of all approaches must be carefully considered. The options for each patient are numerous — from "accepted standard of care" to alternative approaches which have been undoubtedly helpful for many patients. Examples include homeopathy, energy medicine, healing touch and prayer. Also to be considered are the off-label uses of proven and tested medicines. Examples would be antidepressants for sleep or anticonvulsants for pain. Also in this category would be alternative treatments for COVID-19, which we were desperate to find in 2020. So, I have learned to listen to my patients, prescribe with confidence and follow the response closely. It's the art of medicine.

GREGORY AMER, Roseville

Reading the Star Tribune paper each day in my easy chair has been a good habit for most of my 75 years, so I dread the day when print might become but a fond memory of my treasured past ("Changes made for a digital future," Aug. 16). Subscribers have persisted through price increases over the years, and some of us may be willing to continue to pay a premium for print, so I hope that option remains for some years to come. I have sampled other papers, but find the Star Tribune to stand out in quality, content and comprehensiveness. It offers far more detail than the evening newscasts. No other paper would provide as much local news and local sports teams coverage. The crossword puzzles, Super Quiz and Sudoku are a daily challenge to my intellect and memory.

Perhaps you could survey all your print subscribers for their interest at various price levels to cover all the needed expenses to continue print at a profit. Would merging with the Pioneer Press help? Please give us a fighting chance to continue subscribing before you impose that digital future vision.

MICHAEL TILLEMANS, Minneapolis