"Where There is RISK, There Must be CHOICE"
Uh... what about when there's NO risk?
Deconstructing the Phrase: "Where There is Risk, There Must be Choice."
Click on the image below to watch my one-minute commentary on this:
The catchphrase "Where there is RISK, there must be CHOICE" has become a rallying cry for those advocating for awareness and informed consent (another phrase that bears deeper digging). I stand in favor of action and I am grateful for those who bring awareness to the choices we face, especially when they involve risk. However, beneath the surface of this seemingly empowering statement lies a nuanced perspective that warrants scrutiny.
I think we can all find common ground on the fact that we appreciate those who genuinely strive to inform the public about the risks associated with certain choices, no?
However, as I scrutinized this phrase, I asked myself: What exactly do you mean by “where there is risk, there must be choice?”
The crux of the matter lies in what is implied — that where there is no risk, there is no choice.
Does this mean that in the absence of risk (or perceived risk), choice becomes null and void? The phrase, in essence, suggests this binary connection between risk and choice when it comes to decision-making.
The statement that risk must exist in order for a choice to be made is fundamentally flawed and I wholeheartedly reject this premise.
Friends, there must ALWAYS be CHOICE.
The right to make decisions, including the right of no consent, is not (and should never be) confined to situations defined by risk.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: The real story is that it doesn’t matter whether these products are safe or not — what matters is that NO ONE has the RIGHT to FORCE a MEDICAL INTERVENTION on me — or you!
You have the right of no consent. Period.
Remember: language is more than just a means of communication. In the actual world, with legal repercussions, and especially in the context of individual freedom, the language we use can either empower us — or constrain us.
Read Next:
This is perfect! Thanks Peggy! Yes, that's right--there's no "exclusion" or fine print with the so-called Powers-that-Be that should ever override us from making our OWN choices--no iffs/ands/"BUTTS!" This is especially important to understand in light of the fact that (1) they're always changing definitions of what is "safe" and (2) they're actively trying to roll the responsibility of "overseeing our rights" to the WHO, the United Nations, and now even Artificial Intelligence too! (Our United States government doesn't want to be the responsible party to lawsuits.)
PS I wouldn't wouldn't put it past the Morons in Charge to one day say that Snake Venom is "safe and effective" too! =P
I have exactly the same read on this that you do. "Where there is risk, there must be choice" is trying to shift the health freedom narrative away from there always being choice no matter what.