THE CHOICE

1. What is the "choice" referred to in the title?

• The "choice" referred to in the title of this heartbreaking article, at least in a literal sense, is five-year-old cancer patient, Rebecca's, "choice" of either willingly taking her medicine, or having it forcefully administered by her despairing parents. This "choice" could also represent the parents' decision to subject their child to a great deal of discomfort in an attempt to save her from cancerous brain tumors that would undoubtedly kill her should they go untreated, though the text doesn't seem to indicate this meaning. 

2. Is it a real choice?  Why/why not?  What is the alternative?

• Seeing as Rebecca must ingest the repulsive and severely harmful medicine one way or another, the "choice" really isn't a choice at all for her. Addressing the second meaning of "the choice", the answer, in my mind, is still no. No parents I've ever come across would condemn their child to certain death when there is an alternative on the table, even if that alternative is cruelly unfavorable. 

3. Why does the author use the word poison in the first line?

• The author uses the word "poison" instead of medicine to enhance the emotional appeal of his article, helping readers better level with his unimaginably terrible circumstances. Also, as a substance that harms/destroys, the chemotherapy agent in question is, by definition, a poison, though its intended purpose is to ultimately help those who it is used on.

4. The author's daughter wants to play with a toy that is intended for older kids.  Why?  Do you agree with her?  

• In perhaps the most emotionally jarring and hard to read portion of the article, Rebecca gets very stirred up when she is told that she is not allowed to play with a toy that is intended for older children (8+ years of age). "I have to play with it now because it's for kids who are eight years old and I'm never going to be eight!", she cried out. After everything she has had to go through at such a young age, no one can blame her for feeling that way. That being said, such a hopeless outlook is obviously not conducive to her health/recovery, and, therefore, I cannot agree with that mentality. I'm not claiming to have any idea how impossibly difficult it must be to stay positive when faced with such deplorable circumstances, but, from the outside looking in, it is clear to me that that argument should not be validated.  

5. If you thought you might not live to the age of 30 what would you want to do right now?

• Although I have no reason to believe that I will not live a full and healthy life, I would be lying if I said that thoughts of an early death have never crossed my mind. As I'm sure many others have as well, I have struggled immensely with the concept of my consciousness ceasing to exist in general, though this is not the place for that conversation. I assume that this question is really asking what I would want to do right now if I had legitimate reason to believe that I might not live to the age of 30. I'm not going to lie, that knowledge would be pretty difficult for me to cope with. I can't say for sure how I would react, but I imagine that I would try to stay positive and progress through life as if I were guaranteed to survive. Why? Because I feel that that is the only way to overcome such an insurmountable obstacle. In fact, I know that the attitude with which we approach our struggles, even those that seem beyond our control, does have an effect. I've observed it time and time again. Not to mention, the worst case scenario with that mentality: I die hopeful and fighting, while still having been able to enjoy my time while it lasted. That sounds a hell of a lot better to me having death come as a relief from a "life" of crushing fear and uncertainty. My experiences have proven to me that we are all in control of our own situations (mentally), and that we can choose to either wallow in our troubles, or use that power to subdue them. I choose the latter. 

6. Under what circumstances does it make sense to endure discomfort--or even force it on a loved one-- in service to a greater/more important cause?

• There are few notions more terrible than that of forcing suffering/discomfort upon a loved one but, unfortunately, there are certain circumstances, such as those faced by the Meyers, that leave no other viable options. I have no specific criteria for determining what constitutes such measures, so I'm not exactly sure how to answer this question. I suppose the choice is clear when it is a matter of discomfort versus certain death, but, with so many variables involved, anything less definitive is extremely tricky. 

7. Is suffering a necessary condition of life and love?

• This is a very complex, multi-leveled question that can be interpreted many different ways. From every angle I view it, however, the answer still remains "yes": suffering is a necessary condition of love and life. In a literal sense, suffering is inevitable at this point in time. Everyone, no matter how well off, will face some degree of suffering more than once in their life. On a slightly deeper level, I do believe that suffering is a necessary part of the human experience. There needs to be some sort of contrast--some sort of struggle. Without that, there would be no appreciation for positive emotions like love, happiness, accomplishment, etc.

8. Most readers don't share the author's circumstances, but we feel an emotional response to his words.  Why?

• To be perfectly honest, I'm not entirely sure. It is clear, though, that whether it has been carefully developed through steady societal augmentations, simply hardwired in us via our brain physiology, or possibly a combination of both, humans generally have a pretty incredible sense of compassion. As difficult as that article was to swallow, the comments below provided some counterbalance. Seeing that people were willing to make themselves aware of someone else's struggles and offer words of support and encouragement was pretty inspirational.