Minn. Stat. § 609.215 is bad law and should be repealed. Courts say it should be enforced, but it is unrealistic and a burden to those having an ultimate right to end their own lives as painlessly as possible.

Opinion on suicide varies, but it's not the State's life it is the individual's, so why constrain liberty? This is different than financial stability and economic regulation legislation or legislation regulating use and provision of public goods [think road and bridge upkeep, traffic law]. This is a very individual question, one of the most fundamental an individual can face, and one which individuals in the absence of unreasonable Nanny State intent of some to intrude, is best left as such. The State should leave alone.

I want to control when I go, how I go, subject to an environment where elderly chronic disease and body functional decline setting a course to be faced which could make continuing life, in my mind, the undesirable choice. The State has no business in the way of that, and being inexpert I would welcome advice on best leaast-painful exit options.

As one close said over years: I am my mind. It is who I am. If I lose that, I no longer exist.

A body in such a state to me would be an undesirable Terri Schiavo sort of thing I would not want to suffer longer than medical science could end or maintain in an unacceptable manner.

Thinking along this line was triggered by Strib local news, "Eden Prairie man charged with assisting wife's suicide - Thomas Houck told police his 59-year-old wife lived with chronic pain. - By Paul Walsh Star Tribune, August 21, 2018." The item referenced earlier appellate litigation; see, e.g., here, here and a case linked from the second item, here.

It is vexing to see so-called and self-described "libertarians" such as Ron and Rand Paul MIA on that most basic right, as well as being opposed to abortion choice. If basic choice is not respected, how, really, are you a "libertarian?" That way one is only left as hateful toward economic law and regulations, otherwise being a clear Nanny State advocate, dressing up otherwise.

Wikipedia, on Mill's "harm principle." How does that square with assisting another in a voluntary surrender of life? If the individual is helped, where is the harm?

While far less a key issue than universal health care, fair taxation, debt abuse of students, living wage, and money in politics; as a population ages, and as the young see a heavily bleak future of near-serfdom, some may choose an early exit and the question of State imposed impediments becomes timely.

A websearch.

____________UPDATE____________
Citing a statute without presenting exact text is bad form; see, here and here.

U.S. Supreme Court, cert. denied, petition and opposition memorandum.

http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org/site/minnesota/

That last cite presents links related to recent legislative effort in Minnesota, including bill text links, and a March, 2016, PiPress op-ed link, the item ending:

As Minnesotans talk about end-of-life options, there’s much to consider. The soul searching to come will call on us to weigh competing values and society’s role in individual decisions. Whatever its outcome, the conversation will be informative.

While understanding a common usage, nonetheless some might prefer "mind searching" over "soul searching" as one is absolutely known to exist. Since before Descartes's tautology was first phrased. The other is speculative and open to denial and dispute.