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
He considered them his friends. He wasn't hanging out with the clergy or the "righteous."
He scoffed at the attitudes displayed here and I find it wildly amusing that they claim to know what God would think of this situation and that they are the ones who are displaying the correct Christian attitude.
You tell me, if a woman were to wash your feet with her hair wouldn't you be a little bit aroused?
I'm not saying Jesus was aroused, but I don't think he'd be human at all if he weren't. I always wondered about that story. The woman was in love. Total devotion. A man could fantasize about that forever.
These are the Conservatives who wish to conserve not the liberty of the American Revolution, but the libertinism of the Sexual Revolution.
That's the entire issue from a Christian point of view. Once one has faith in Him, he has eternal life. It's for all to suffer the first death, but the focus of one's life is elsewhere. The first death is sort of a defacto event. The sting has ben removed.
Preoccupation of committting that one act, especially when it involves others offering to help in fulfilling a singular wish, indicates soemthing other than eternal salvation. I don't know nor does anybody except God and He is the One who gives that gift only by His grace.
Granted we might sin and He's already paid for our sins. Romans provides some other insights to sinning after accepting Him as our Savior as He only died once for our sins. Hebrews also provides guidance regarding carnal Christians.
May I ask your definition of "reasonable"? I'd call this desire "concupiscent." Or is reason merely the "slave of the passions"?
While not Biblical, the story of Lucifer's fall had something to do with God revealing His plan, which included angels bending their knee to the incarnate God. Lucifer decided that there was no way that he, high and mighty, could bend his knee to worship that, and rebelled.
Additionally, it is said that Lucifer ( now Satan ) stands before the throne of God, accusing and condemning men for their faults and failings( for the Biblical retorts, which will probably come, please refer to the story of Job ) until that time when God says, " No more. ".
It might just be me, but I see a parallel here. Do I condone encouraging young men to be set up with hookers? No. But, in this case, it appears that this teenager wasn't really concerned with getting his rocks off, but more with experiencing a part of ( God given, I might add )human sexuality that he knew he would not have a chance to do in the short time he had. I cannot see the justification in condemning the boy ( and quoting Bible verses to justify the personal condemnation of the boy--well, it is said that the Devil can quote the Bible as well as any great biblical scholar ).
She was in it for the money. Obviously if someone didn't give her that, she would have had no use at all for the poor kid. That isn't compassion at all.
These people are not conservatives, but Libertarian ideologues and members of the Degenerate Wing of the Republican Party, who like their Marxist brethren promulgate and proselytize a moral-liberal and humanist false-morality.
15 year old: "Hello G-d!"
G-d: "Well, you had a bum rap for a life, it ended much too shortly and with too much pain. I was going to give you a nice cloud to hang out on, BUT, you done screwed up now... You will spend eternity in hellfire in screaming agony that makes the cancer you had for the last (and only) 15 years of your life look like a picnic.
15 year old: "huh?"
G-d: "Ba-bye!" (kicks him into a hole marked "Hell-Bound")
(15 year old screaming in agony as he is tranported to the depths of hell)
You're not a male are you?
I'm 55 and the most important thing in the world is to get laid before I die.
I hadn't thought about that but now that you mention it..
I recall reading a book about Ethel and Juluis Rosenberg, the nuclear spies.
Apparently they had been imprisoned separately and when they were reunited, shortly before they were executed, they sexually mauled each other, embarrassing the guards.
So, I guess if Samson was around, or Judah, you would say that they followed "a moral-liberal and humanist false-morality"???????
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.