The Old Man's Choice

I've been thinking about "social distancing" (how can you not at this time).

🚨 "2 metres apart, no visiting friends or relatives!" 🚨

Obviously I completely disagree with all this. Especially the enforced nature of it - the lack of choice (though I am acquiescing - I'm not that much of a rebel ...not yet at least anyway).

Anyhow, I've been thinking about why in particular I disagree with this. What exactly is my rationale? And further to this; how can I communicate this rationale to other people in a clear and easy way. I have another article lined up that will deal with all this in much more detail - I think I can make a very good case for my position, that tackles these problems from the root up. In a very logical, and more importantly, human way. For now though I'm going to pose one specific question.

The Old Man's Choice

(Some funny old people from olde times

- actually a crop of a picture titled "Sippers and

Topers", whatever that means, c. 1900*)

I'm going to give you a hypothetical situation. Let's say we have a man who's 90 years old, and let's say we know that this man has 6 months left to live (don't ask how we know, we just do).

Now there's a nasty flu virus going around and this man has two choices.

Option 1) He goes into isolation. Inside, on his own. Occasionally visited by healthcare professionals replete with face masks, etc, who bring his food, medicine and other essentials. In this scenario he lives the full 6 months.

Option 2) He doesn't go into isolation and just continues his life as he usually would. He sees his family and his grandchildren. He pops down the pub every Sunday for a beer and his lunch. He goes to the odd football match with his son to watch his favourite team. However, in this scenario there's the possibility that he catches the nasty flu virus that's going round and dies at some point before the 6 months are up.

So which choice should he take? And perhaps more importantly who should decide?

Now personally I think he should decide. It's his life and his decision, and I believe he should have the right to weigh up the risk for himself. Just as people normally do for all manner of things that have any element of danger. I don't think any person or any government should ever have the right to take that free choice away from a person.

Were I myself in that position I'd like to think I'd go with "option 2". I'd much rather enjoy my life, see my loved ones and take the risk. Again though, that's just me, and no matter how strongly a case I can make for that option it still wouldn't give me the right to impose it on someone else against their wishes.

I suspect, like me, a lot of older people would also plump for "option 2". In fact, I know some in real life right this instant. However, this current lock down - especially if it continues for much longer - will most surely deny many, many people that option. Robbing them of the chance to spend their precious time with the people they love, doing the things they like doing, and enjoying the world around them to its fullest.

What do you think? ..and if you disagree what is your rationale for removing this right from someone?


/////////////////////

*I've actually looked up what "sipper" and "toper" mean. A sipper is someone who sips their drink - probably could've worked that one out. A toper is a drunkard :)  ..remember, only indoors or it's the Stasi!