I have always been a bit stubborn when it comes to my convictions. Not the everyday kind of stubbornness that digs in over which restaurant to choose or which route to take home. Mine runs deeper. It is the kind that settles into the bones, that refuses negotiation even when the cost is high, even when the path leads straight into an operating room. Convictions, for me, are not opinions to be updated with new data or softened by social pressure. They are lines drawn in permanent ink. Cross them, and something essential in me fractures.
That stubbornness once led me to talk a doctor into performing brain surgery. Not for a tumor. Not for trauma. For removal. Years earlier, a shunt had been placed in my head to drain excess fluid—standard medical intervention for a condition that, left unchecked, can press against the brain and threaten life itself. The device did its job. It kept the pressure down. It kept me functional. And yet, every day I lived with the knowledge that something foreign—metal, plastic, tubing that did not belong to the original design of a human body—was sitting inside my skull.

I do not believe in having anything in my body that is not naturally supposed to be there. Metals. Plastics. Synthetic valves. Permanent implants. To me they represent a quiet violation. The body is not a machine to be endlessly upgraded or patched with industrial materials. It is a living system shaped by forces far older and more intricate than any operating theater. If that system cannot fight off whatever illness or imbalance is ailing it, perhaps it is not meant to. Perhaps the struggle itself is part of a larger design. Maybe this is God’s plan.
I know how that sounds. In an age that treats every physical limitation as a technical problem awaiting a better device, the idea that some conditions might simply be allowed to run their course feels almost heretical. Modern medicine has achieved miracles—lives extended, suffering reduced, functions restored that once would have ended in early graves. I do not deny the skill of the surgeons or the ingenuity of the engineers who design these interventions. What I reject is the assumption that every intervention is automatically an improvement, or that the body is incomplete without the latest hardware.
The decision to remove the shunt was not impulsive. It grew from years of living with the quiet presence of something that felt alien. I researched. I prayed. I examined the risks with the same intensity most people reserve for deciding whether to undergo the implant in the first place. The fluid imbalance that once required the device could return. Pressure could rebuild. But what I cared most about was that I had just started losing weight and I could start to feel the tube that dangled down the side of my throat (from my brain and into my stomach). Aesthetics matter. There were no guarantees. Still, the conviction held: better to face whatever came next with a body returned to its natural state than to continue carrying an object that, in my view, did not belong.

Convincing a surgeon was its own ordeal. My own neurologist told me that I would have to have it for my entire life. Suddenly I imagined having to go through airport security with a chunk of metal lodged in my head. Doctors are trained to preserve function and prevent harm. Asking one to open a skull in order to extract a working device runs against every protective instinct the profession cultivates. I had to sweet talk my way. I had gotten good at this and got my way again obviously. I did not demand recklessness. I presented the case as a considered philosophical and spiritual position, not a whim. I accepted full responsibility for the outcome. Eventually the procedure happened. The shunt came out. The recovery was not simple. There were adjustments, monitoring, moments of uncertainty. But the foreign object was gone. The body was, as much as possible, itself again.
This experience did not turn me into an opponent of all medicine. Infections still require treatment. Broken bones still need setting. Acute crises still call for intervention. What it clarified is the boundary I refuse to cross: the permanent installation of materials that the body did not generate and cannot fully integrate. That boundary is rooted in a larger view of human limitation and divine order. If the body’s own systems cannot overcome a particular challenge, the solution may not always be to override those systems with hardware. Sometimes the wiser path is to accept the constraint, to live within it, or to trust that the constraint itself carries meaning.
Conviction of this intensity is not comfortable. It isolates. It invites judgment. People hear the story and see either reckless defiance or admirable consistency, rarely anything in between. Yet I have found that living without such anchors leaves a person drifting—susceptible to every new medical fashion, every technological promise, every cultural pressure to optimize and upgrade. Stubbornness in conviction is the refusal to be optimized according to someone else’s blueprint.
I do not claim this path is for everyone. Bodies differ. Beliefs differ. Risk tolerances differ. What I do claim is the right—and the responsibility—to inhabit my own body according to the deepest principles I hold. For me those principles include the integrity of the natural form, the acceptance of mortality as part of a larger design, and the willingness to act on those beliefs even when the action is extreme. The brain surgery was not a rejection of life. It was an affirmation of a particular way of living it: unadorned, uncompromised, and aligned with the conviction that what is meant to be will find its way, and what is not may be better left untouched.
In the end, the devices we install and the ones we refuse both say something about what we believe a human being is for. My answer has always been the same. We are not projects under continuous construction. We are creatures living inside a plan larger than our own engineering. Sometimes that plan includes the hard choice to remove what was once thought necessary. Sometimes it simply asks us to stand firm in the belief that the body, left as close as possible to its original state, is already enough.









































