If We Left Biology to Human Choice

What if we could decide which of our body’s systems ran — and when?

Imagine an app that lets you toggle survival itself:

• Heartbeat: Pause when tired.

• Breathing: Disable during stress.

• Pain: Mute for convenience.

• Digestion: Off when busy.

• Immunity: Optional — too reactive.

• Cell repair: Defer until later.

The human heart beats roughly three billion times in a lifetime. It doesn’t ask permission. It doesn’t wait for belief. It beats because it must — because if it didn’t, we’d die in seconds.

Autonomic functions exist beyond opinion for a reason. They’re ancient, self-regulating, and unforgiving. When they fail, it’s not a “difference of belief.” It’s pathology.

Now imagine applying the same illusion of control to immunology — the idea that the immune system, shaped by evolution and fortified by science, can be micromanaged by ideology.

That’s what the anti-vaccine movement does: it treats biology as optional and expertise as negotiable. It confuses autonomy with authority — as if personal preference can rewrite cellular intelligence or immune memory.

If we left our heartbeat to human decision, most of us wouldn’t make it through the night. If we left our immunity to the loudest opinion online, humanity might not have made it through the century.

Science isn’t tyranny; it’s stewardship — the quiet, continuous pulse that keeps the species alive while we argue about belief.

Author: R.E. Hengsterman, MSN, MA, M.E., RN

Registered nurse, night-shift administrator, and author of The Shift Worker’s Paradox

Nursewhowrites.com

For educational purposes only. Not medical advice.