Posted on 12/23/2001 6:26:24 AM PST by Mopp4
A terminally ill boy had his dying wish granted in Australia this month, but ethicists are still at odds over whether it was the right thing to do.
The wish was not for a trip to Disneyland or to meet a famous sports star. Instead, the 15-year-old wanted to lose his virginity before he died of cancer. The boy, who remains anonymous but was called Jack by the Australian media, did not want his parents to know about his request. Because of his many years spent in the hospital, he had no girlfriend or female friends.
Jack died last week, but not before having his last wish granted. Without the knowledge of his parents or hospital staff, friends arranged an encounter with a prostitute outside of hospital premises. All precautions were taken, and the organizers made sure the act was fully consensual. The issue has sparked fierce debate over the legal and ethical implications of granting the boy's request. By law, Jack was still a child, and the woman involved could in theory face charges for having sex with a minor. The debate was sparked by the hospital's child psychologist, who wrote a letter to "Life Matters," a radio show in which academics debate ethical and moral dilemmas. The scenario was presented in the abstract, with no details about the boy's identity.
"He had been sick for quite a long period, and his schooling was very disrupted, so he hadn't had many opportunities to acquire and retain friends, and his access to young women was pretty poor," the psychologist said recently in an interview with Australia's Daily Telegraph newspaper. "But he was very interested in young women and was experiencing that surge of testosterone that teenage boys have." Hospital staff initially wanted to pool donations to pay for a prostitute, but the ethical and legal implications prevented them from doing so. The psychologist presented members of the clergy with the dilemma and found no clear answer. "It really polarized them," he said. "About half said, 'What's your problem?' And the other half said [it] demeans women and reduces the sexual act to being just a physical one."
Dr. Stephen Leeder, dean of medicine at the University of Sydney and a "Life Matters" panelist, said the issue was a difficult one. "I pointed out that public hospitals operated under the expectation that they would abide by state law," he said. "While various things doubtless are done that are at the edge of that, it's important the public has confidence that the law will be followed." Jack's psychologist, who works with children in palliative care, said the desire was driven in part by a need for basic human contact. "In a child dying over a long period of time, there is often a condition we call 'skin hunger,'" he said. The terminally ill child yearns for non-clinical contact because "mostly when people touch them, it's to do something unpleasant, something that might hurt." Leeder called the diagnosis "improbable." Judy Lumby, the show's other panelist and the executive director of the New South Wales College of Nursing, argued that the details as presented made it abundantly clear the boy's wish ought to be granted. "I said that I would try my darndest as a nurse to do whatever I could to make sure his wish came true," she said. "I just think we are so archaic in the way we treat people in institutions. Certainly, if any of my three daughters were dying, I'd do whatever I could, and I'm sure that you would, too." National Post
I hope that you don't mean that we are morally absolved of any wrong doing if our death is imminent.
Having sex isn't wrong in my point of view. A 15 year old boy having sex with a prostitute is wrong in my point of view. I hope that's not a radical view.
Based on your suggestions to others, it seems as if you are giving advice to God himself. I believe that God knows what is moral in this case and not you.
For example, financial prudence is generally considered a virtue - however if you only have a few weeks to live you might as well spend every cent you have on everything you ever wanted (again assuming all other financial responsibilites to children, debt, etc are taken care of) because you won't be able to take it with you when you go.
Bravo to all that helped him.
I think it is with the hospital staff providing pimp services the family did not request for their minor child. I've been a hospital employee and we are paid to perform a particular service and that's all. I think they were completely out of line to go behind the parents' backs and make moral decisions for a child who wasn't their own.
Even that should be a family decision to a large extent. If a family lets a 15 year old stay out all night it's their choice but if the curfew is set at 10pm that's also their choice. As long as you are paying the bills, you have that right. I even believe as long as someone lives in your house and eats your food and requires your financial support ---no matter the age, you have authority to make rules on their living style. You're required to support a 15 year old so you have full rights, at 18 they have a choice to live under your rules or move out and be self reliant.
Since this was the hospital staff deciding to completely disregard the parents regarding a minor child, I don't see how it would be different if some orderly would have seduced a 12 year old girl patient and had "consensual" sex with her before she died, it might not be difficult to convince a child that age on pain killers that their life would be meaningless unless she tried sex at least one.
Yes he did. Alot. It's what is called free-will and since the Bible does not cover every given situation, you have to make your choices the best that you can as did this boy and those around him.
You have absolutely no idea how God will judge them and that is the point.
Exactly the same.
Since this story first appeared, I have thought about it often and realized a sad thing:
Most parents (and many wannabes, I suspect) view the parent's role is discipline as the end in itself, and actually enjoy the control over their kids.
Without the prospect of a future physical life, all of the reasons to instill restraint, discipline, knowledge and judgement become moot.
The obligations of parenthood do not exist in a vaccuum or result from dogma.
Psa 103:11 For as the heaven is high above the
earth, [so] great is his mercy toward them that fear him.
Psa 103:12 As far as the east is from the west, [so]
far hath he removed our transgressions from us.
Psa 103:13 Like as a father pitieth [his] children,
[so] the LORD pitieth them that fear him.
Psa 103:14 For he knoweth our frame; he remembereth
that we [are] dust.
That is the view of the terminally righteous and the dogmatic.
I prefer to see it as the very human reaction of wanting to prevent pain and anguish for those we love whether that pain and anguish are justified or not.
Another reason to admire the kid.
Are you among those who live the reverse?
You one of those who must call everybody you can think of at 3 a.m. when somebody dies?
Aren't Pride and Arrogance among the cardinal sins?
And these people think that remaining "unaware" will reduce their own self-defined punishment.
HA!
Well, when that issue shows up in a thread, we can discuss it.
For now "made up" silly scenarios are not the topic.
The current topic is quite specific, and each variation deserves individual judgement; one answer does not fit all.
What's next? We are all pedophiles for not agreeing with you? That is the predictable tactic of those who would rather lash out than think.
Think of my view like an American Express card - a number of factors go into a particular decision to accept or reject charges rather than having a set credit limit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.