Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Australians debate ethics of dying boy's wish for sex.
National Post ^ | 12-22-01 | Benjamin Errett

Posted on 12/25/2001 1:45:45 PM PST by First Strike

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 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 The Daily Telegraph. "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 panellist, 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."

Dr. Leeder called the diagnosis "improbable."

Judy Lumby, the show's other panellist and the executive director of the New South Wales College of Nursing, argued 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."

berrett@nationalpost.com


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041 next last
Well, this is a tough question... But I still think the decision was and always should have been up to the kid. Not someone else. When we start playing God, we start imparting our will upon others in unhealthy ways.
1 posted on 12/25/2001 1:45:45 PM PST by First Strike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: First Strike
Boy, that's a hard one.
2 posted on 12/25/2001 2:10:34 PM PST by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: First Strike
But I still think the decision was and always should have been up to the kid.

Indeed? So by extention, should this decision be up to every 15-year-old kid? 14? 13? 12?

If the prostitute became pregnant with the boy's child, wouldn't she be entitled to sue the boy's parents for support? Would you absolve them of that, since it was "up to the kid?"

Sexuality outside a marriage between a man and a woman always gets thorny; STDs, prostitution, unplanned pregancies, abortions, orphans, etc.... That's why it's best left there, no matter how badly we may want it without restriction. God's way works best.

3 posted on 12/25/2001 2:11:31 PM PST by kezekiel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: First Strike
I'm with those who say "what's the problem?" The kid had gone through Hell for years, had suffered unimaginable pain and was probably as depressed as anyone could be about not being able to live life, to have a family, etc. What's wrong with him having had a little bit of fun before he died? Nothing that I can see. And as for those who say it demeans females, I would say 2 things: 1) I would say the same for a teenage girl who got together with a male prostitute and 2) if all women feel demeaned by the actions of one of their number who chooses to engage in that profession, then they have lots of problems besides feeling demeaned. And I don't care if women feel demeaned by prostitution - I don't look at all women as prostitutes, only those who are (or who act like it).

Nomex suit on; awaiting flames.

4 posted on 12/25/2001 2:11:50 PM PST by Ancesthntr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: First Strike
this is one of those instances where I would look the other way...thankful I'm not in a position of authority.
5 posted on 12/25/2001 2:23:38 PM PST by True Capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: First Strike;newzjunkey
Bump for rumination and later commentary.
6 posted on 12/25/2001 2:29:12 PM PST by newzjunkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr
No flames from me. The folks with problems are those who inject themselves and their own "morality" into this sad situation.
7 posted on 12/25/2001 2:35:10 PM PST by Octar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: First Strike
I have no problem with the kid going out with more than his time up. If it made for a more happy passing and didn't really affect anyone's life in the negative, more power to him.
8 posted on 12/25/2001 2:37:03 PM PST by Hellmouth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hellmouth
The parents of that child are legally responsible for his actions, and I would not blame them if they sued that screwy bunch at the hospital.
9 posted on 12/25/2001 2:41:06 PM PST by tessalu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: First Strike
It may have been the boy's dying wish, but it was the hospital staff that took it upon themselves to deliver the wish. This is where the fault is.
10 posted on 12/25/2001 2:42:46 PM PST by rintense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kezekiel
I think STDS are a moot point in this case.
11 posted on 12/25/2001 2:49:33 PM PST by College Repub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RedBloodedAmerican
Is this becoming an urban legend?
We've had two threads about the British version already...
12 posted on 12/25/2001 2:55:40 PM PST by Publius6961
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tessalu
If I entrusted my minor child to a hospital and found out the staff had arranged for paid sex for that child, I would sue them big time. The staff has no business doing anything but what they are paid to do for patients ---especially children. A minor child should have NO visitors that are not authorized by the parents to be there.
13 posted on 12/25/2001 3:11:17 PM PST by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: rintense
A hospital employee could easily have decided to provide the sex and not pay a prostitute. A male employee could seduce a 12 year old full of pain meds that she really ought to try sex before she dies and it would be "consensual" too. This isn't a case where the kid's friends (the article is clear he didn't have friends his own age) brought in some girl his age, it was adults interfering behind his parents' backs and making decisions in place of them.
14 posted on 12/25/2001 3:14:59 PM PST by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: kezekiel
Indeed? So by extention, should this decision be up to every 15-year-old kid? 14? 13? 12?

You completely sidestep the issue. This isn't "every" 15-year-old male. Incidently, fifteen is nearly the average age of males losing their virginity so plenty, obviously, are deciding for themselves and will stand accountable before God. This is different than what you argue against. This a 15-year-old kid who knew he was dying and, indeed, did die. Further, ages of consent vary by locality and even by the genders of the partner's involved. Legal age to marry also varies with and without parental consent. To my knowledge, there is no 11th Commandment: "Thou shalt not lay down with women as you would a wife before the age of twenty-one years."

If the prostitute became pregnant with the boy's child, wouldn't she be entitled to sue the boy's parents for support? Would you absolve them of that, since it was "up to the kid?"

You, evidently, wish to absolve the (adult?) prostitute for her decision making. Likely, absent contractual issues (in a case where she's more of a surrogate), I suppose she would seek an abortion, murdering the baby. Sex carries with it the "risk" of pregnancy. The prostitute surely knew this.

I have no issue with parents sharing a legal burden for a grandchild's upbringing if it had been the same regardless of whether this was a "wish" granted or if he'd simply impregnated a girlfriend and died in a waterskiing accident. What's the law in that case? If that doesn't work for the People, change the law and absolve the parents.

A question for you is this: would you have denied this 15-yr-old a right to procreate if that, instead, had been his dying wish? Would you do so because of his age? The Church takes a dim view of pro-creation through technological means; I think we'd be better off--with fewer hideous decisions to make--without such means. In my understanding of Church doctrine, the boy would neither have a moral right to pro-create (by any means available) nor simply lose his virginity. He's be called to die a virgin outside the context of the marriage sacrament.

We're fortunate, perhaps, that reconciling ourselves with God is not a job for the State to mandate and control. It would seem to me there's a failure of the legal system to provide for exceptions in final wish, shall-die cases like this.

I have no issue with the basic ethics and suggest the law should accomidate these things. I'm not disagreeing with what you call "God's Way", but ultimately the moral choice is the 15-yr-old's and anyone who's helped him carry out that decision. I suppose, on some level, we might all carry some measure from original sin for allowing such immorality to go on and become sanctioned by the State.

For anyone who might be confused, I would not draw a parallel with "it's her body" pro-abortion "logic" for in this dying wish case as there's no innocent and helpless third person involved. There are means wherein this youth could have been matched with a sex partner wherein no pregnancy could have take place.

These are different venues, different issues, different arguments: legalisms and ethics vs. free will and righteousness. I suppose no one should be surprised at my stand, it's fairly consistant with my view that houses of worship should be protected from having to perform "gay marriage" if that's the church's teaching but there should be a strictly civil equivalent so as to ensure full rights and opportunities to all citizens in the basic human area of selecting a mate, a life partner.

Let me say I'm greatly saddened this young male's only outlet for filling his wish was a street prostitute.

On behalf of my father, orphaned by married parents who died of natural causes, and a grade school friend, orphaned by the death of her married parents hit by a drunken driver, I resent and reject the notion orphans aren't part of "God's Way". Alright, the drunk driver wasn't following "God's Way" or the law. Angela deserved better.

Oh, and I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks when I've taken more time to think about this case. :)

Happy Christmas.

15 posted on 12/25/2001 3:24:56 PM PST by newzjunkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FITZ
Unless I missed something (wouldn't be the first time), it only says he didn't have *female* friends his own age. No female friends and no girlfriend left apparently no outlet for his heterosexual desires except for the prostitute seemingly acquired by his buddies.
16 posted on 12/25/2001 3:28:38 PM PST by newzjunkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: kezekiel
"But I still think the decision was and always should have been up to the kid.

Indeed? So by extention, should this decision be up to every 15-year-old kid? 14? 13? 12?"

Tough Call! A 15 Year Old Boy, dying of cancer (dying for a long time, I might add?) is no longer JUST a boy. Granted his wish was out of the ordinary, however it was HIS LAST wish!

17 posted on 12/25/2001 3:46:52 PM PST by Dacus943
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: First Strike
I am just going to sit back and let the Christians and Libertarians fight this one out.
18 posted on 12/25/2001 3:51:12 PM PST by Ronin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #19 Removed by Moderator

To: newzjunkey
It depends on the ages of the friends who paid for the prostitute. I read another thread that indicated it was the hospital staff who provided the "visitor" and without the parents' consent which would have been totally inappropriate for other adults to interfere in this family's wishes for their child. I don't know how many of his 15 year old friends would have the money to obtain a prostitute's "services". Either way when it comes to a hospitalized minor child, the hospital isn't supposed to allow visitors without the parent's approval.
20 posted on 12/25/2001 3:53:12 PM PST by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson