Friday, 17 December 2010

Definition of "choice."

What is technically the definition of choice? Well, dictionary.com summarised one context as “the right, power, or opportunity to choose; option”. Then why do people want to revoke choices? There are a number of things which are banned in the world which should quite simply; be a choice. The main things which are banned and that I completely agree with are stem cell research and euthanasia. The reasons these are banned are for ‘ethical reasons’ when in reality it’s because of religious reasons and why should that be allowed? They’ve taken away one of our freedoms and that is choice.

Yesterday, I heard about a HIV-positive man possibly being cured via stem cells. Now, I’m struggling to find a truly popular and credible source covering this story so it’s a bit hard to find information other than 140 character related tweets about it. It became a trending topic last night and no UK paper is covering this story. Why? I’m not sure, it could be a hoax or it could be another reason. I’m going to go with the latter on this one. If it is true then they’ve finally cured HIV and we should all be celebrating and it should be on the news everywhere that we may have affectively cured it. In my opinion, the reason they haven’t covered this yet (if ever) is because it’s not definite and it’ll probably give a lot of people false hope which isn’t nice. There’ll also be an uproar asking why this is banned and there’ll be more protests - from both sides - and potentially riots so I suppose they’re holding off for now.

If it is true then I feel sorry for the people who may not be able to receive this treatment. They’ll just have to die an agonising and drawn-out death because of things they may not necessarily agree with. What I don’t understand is that religious people condemn it and protest against it because it’s against the invisible-man’s will. We’re letting people die because of a hypothetical God who has a fail safe of faith. “It shouldn’t have to show its work or show itself to you, it should just be worshipped anyway” is the great cop-out of religious people. Their blind faith may have killed a lot of people with the ban on stem cell treatments which is unfair. It should be - at the end of the day - a choice.

Luckily, as I looked into this subject I found out that the UK is behind stem cell research now with Cambridge having £10m donated to them for them to research into it. This has made me happier but I can’t find if the treatment will be given afterwards which is a little confusing. Stem cells has a bright future and could cure many things like cancer but religious and ‘ethical’ reasons may hinder its progress. For example, embryonic stem cells are still being debated but in my opinion there is nothing wrong with them being used. Either way, it should come down to choice. When it comes to your life, shouldn’t you be able to make choices regarding the saving of it? The prolonging of it?

Euthanasia is legal in only 10 places. It’s only legal in about seven countries and legal in four states in America with California thinking of legalising it. That’s a very minor amount and it should be a lot more. According to figures I found online, two thirds of Britons think it should be legal yet it’s still illegal. Why? It’s clearly just a choice. I’m going to go to a simple quote “if you don’t like it, don’t do it.” It seems such a simple quote but in practice it’s more difficult because of people who say it’s not your right to end your life, it’s God’s right.

If it was God’s right to end MY life then he wouldn’t have given me free will. Either way, you can’t force your religious beliefs on people and you can’t make them suffer in their final hour. That’s cruel. Their final hours will consist of them in an inexplicable amount of pain that will leave them begging for it to end and for any way out possible. If you were in their shoes you’d be wanting the exact same thing and it’s only a matter of time so why not it let end on their own terms? Why force your views of how that is a ‘sin’ on them and just let them be at peace? Surely that would be God’s will.

If you want to end it all there is one company in Switzerland which offer this sweet release of death and those saviours are Dignitas (funnily enough, Dignitas is also a gaming organisation which is pretty big in competitive gaming and eSports). They will lay you or your loved one to peace in a pain-free manner. Unfortunately, if you do do this, when you arrive home you get arrested for assisted suicide which is still ridiculous. Why is that an arrestable offence? It’s your choice to end your life. It shouldn’t be anyone else’s but your own. No one should force you to live in the pain because of outdated, traditional views. That’s just immoral and everyone should realise how immoral it actually is.

Euthanasia isn’t ‘assisted suicide’ it’s a relief to the person, a goodbye on their own terms so they can say goodbye to their loved ones and finally pass away in an endless slumber instead of writhing in pain in a personal purgatory-like place. You’d think that the government would recognise all of these advantages, but they don’t. They’re still stuck with traditional thoughts and I see no reason why. That’s one of the reasons our infrastructure is one of the weakest in the UK because we don’t embrace change, we’re frightened by it. Let’s face it, the BNP and UKIP are the most traditional of all and I won’t rant about them now but they have idiotic thoughts which would put our government in reverse at a catastrophic speed. Traditions should be scrapped and we should welcome the new and accept all that is good. Holland, Switzerland and Japan (besides Japan’s debt) are role models to the world that we should live in. They’re liberal and open to change and we should model ourselves after them. After all, wouldn’t you like a change?

So let me define choice for us: “an illusion; an anti-tardis that, in Britain, is ever shrinking whilst expanding for others.” That’s what a choice is now.