Oh, isn’t that nice. The head of WorldCom has apologised.

Honestly, do they think that will make it all okay? A kiss for the scrape, a Band-Aid, and off they run to play with the other kids on the block again?

In other news: Ray Brown has died. It’s not just me; twentieth century icons are dropping like flies.

And, the sixteen year old Jehovah’s Witness known as “Mia” in Alberta has won her case to refuse transfusions for her leukemia. Her religion forbids it; until now, the state has forced them on her. This isn’t about religion, although it seems like it on the surface. It’s about setting a precedent for the freedom to choose and establishing fundamental human rights. The worst thing about this situation? Her father is fighting to reverse the ruling, so that Mia’s choice to refuse treatment and die in peace will be taken away for her. He wants to force her to live.

Can you believe that? Granted, she’s technically still a legal minor. Family court, however, has ruled that she’s obviously mature enough to make her own decisions. The case is due to move on to the Supreme Court where they’ll examine if a sixteen-year-old is in fact old enough to make choices about her own life, but that’s in the future. It’s a tricky situation; if she’d murdered someone, they’d have the choice to try her as an adult or a juvenile. I don’t see why that can’t apply to a situation like this as well.

It really makes me seethe. A young woman has made a courageous and difficult decision about her own life, and her father is trying to take it away from her. That’s selfish. I realise that a parent, having brought a child into the world and raised her for however many years, will forever function in parental protective mode: one of the deepest tragedies in anyone’s life is losing a child, no matter what the age. And through much of childhood, a parent must make heavy decisions concerning a child’s health and welfare, and, as a general rule, will fight tooth and nail to preserve their progeny. However, by sixteen, if faith and serious thought dictate a youth’s decisions, particularly concerning a terminal illness, you can’t stomp all over their rights just because you think you know best. There comes a point where you have to allow them the individuality and maturity that you’ve supposedly cultivated in them.

Maybe I’ve been spoiled by parents who have let me make my own choices, who have stood back and watched me struggle and fall on my face at times, but who have also watched me grow into a pretty strong human being. Maybe I’m in the minority. This young woman, however, has only a ten percent chance of survival if she undergoes treatment she has described as “invasive”, and will probably have to suffer various treatments for the rest of her days is she does survive. While my parents were down we talked about death of pets and making the choice to end someone else’s life, and my mother used the phrase “quality of life”. If the rest of your life is going to be tubes and wires and a sterile hospital room, whether you’re sixteen or a septagenarian, why shouldn’t you have the right to decide to end it? It saves the state money, it saves pain and emotional anguish, and conserves human dignity. A cat cannot look at you and say, “You know, I’ve had a good life, but I’m in severe pain. I love you, but it’s time.” (Actually, they can, and most cat owners know when they do, but so many people ignore what’s best for the cat and keep it alive beyond what it would have lived naturally because they’re afraid of facing loss and grief. Terrific. So instead you put the cat through hell, even though its quality of life has diminished?) A human being, however, can say, “I can’t do this any more. I choose to stop.” Apart from that whole sticky Hippocratic Oath thing, which is one of the stumbling blocks when it comes to situations like this, who has the right to deny someone the basic right to live or die?

The truth is, there is no easy answer. We can’t draft a law that covers situations like this, because every one is unique and must be addressed individually. I should be pleased that the family court has made the ground-breaking ruling that allows Mia the choice to direct her own medical treatment, which in her case means having the right to deny transfusions. Instead, I’m frustrated.