Posted on 12/21/2001 11:46:28 AM PST by LiveFree2000
The moral minefield of a boy's dying wish 21dec01 But there's a problem – he's in hospital, he doesn't want to talk to his mum and dad about it, and having been sick and in and out of hospital since the age of 12, he has formed no friendships or relationships with girls from his peer group. The boy, let's call him Jack, simply wants to experience what every testosterone-driven heterosexual teenage boy thinks about, allegedly, every 17 seconds. Sex. So what does he do? It sounds like a hypothetical situation, but this story is true and Jack is real. His heartbreaking story about death and desire came to light last month when the child psychologist dealing with Jack wrote a letter to the Radio National program, Life Matters, in which moral dilemmas are discussed by academics. It's a fascinating topic for academic discussion: how does a minor and the people who care for him tread though the ethical and practical minefield to see that he gets such a wish? And firstly, should he even be granted his wish? While many of us might scream reflexively "Yes! Of course!", cautious ethicists may ask questions. Is a 15 year-old, officially a child, intellectually and emotionally competent to make such a mature decision? Do the parents have a right to know? Should the woman involved be charged with the criminal offence of having sex with a minor? Should a prostitute be involved? Should the hospital staff help to organise something? All valid questions ripe for discussion, but forget the academic debate. What happened to Jack himself? Yesterday, the child psychologist – who wishes to remain anonymous – told The Daily Telegraph the rest of the dying boy's story. He had become involved after a nurse tending Jack – the only person Jack took into his confidence – urged the boy to talk to him. So Jack spoke to the child psychologist, who specifically deals with children dying of terminal diseases, and this was not the first time the psychologist had heard of such a wish from a teenage boy. "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," said the psychologist. "But he was very interested in young women and was experiencing that surge of testosterone that teenage boys have." So Jack and the psychologist had a series of thorough discussions in which they went through every possible permutation of what might happen to him physically and emotionally so that he was "completely prepared" for the prospect of living out his final dream. Jack's state of mind, he said, was sensible and mature and psychologically, totally competent. As he said: "Terminally ill kids get very wise, very quickly" and Jack had been sick for a long time. The hospital staff who knew about Jack's wish at first wanted to help, their first reaction being "let's do a whip around and pay for a prostitute" but of course ethical and legal considerations stopped them in their tracks. The psychologist also had canvassed members of the clergy, and found an interesting response: "It really polarised them, about half said what's your problem? And the other half said [the idea] demeans women and reduces the sexual act to being just a physical one. "I just saw it as a legitimate request of a young man who wants to experience something that can do no harm." The psychologist said that with Jack, he rigorously questioned what damage might be done to him as a result of fulfilling his wish, and the answer came up every time: none. "Everyone's uncomfortable with teenage sex, period," said the psychologist. "Adolescents becoming sexual is enormously confronting, and a lot of people believe that kids shouldn't be sexual. But we are sexual from the womb to the tomb – that's my view. "But ethics and morals aside, in children dying over a long period of time, there is often a condition we call 'skin hunger'." This happens when a child, seriously ill and in and out of hospital and receiving medical treatment over a long period, yearns for non-clinical contact because "mostly when people touch them, it's to do something unpleasant, something that might hurt". "So you ask," said the psychologist, "what was this young man wanting? "Was he wanting a cuddle?" Probably yes, but as his illness and its treatment hadn't obliterated his normal teenage urges, he also really wanted that consummate experience. So without his parents knowing, and completely without the involvement of the hospital staff, and not – it must be stressed – on the hospital's premises, Jack "did engage in the act and it was everything he wished it to be". "He was very, very happy and only slightly disappointed that it was over quickly." "The act", his dying wish, was with a sex worker who was "organised by friends who thought it was the right thing to do". All precautions were taken, and the friends made sure the act was fully consensual and involved no abuse or exploitation. As for the legal ramifications of such a case, "quite clearly the law was broken, but of the people involved, most didn't give a toss," the psychologist said. And what of the parent's right to know about their son? Jack simply didn't want to talk to them about it. He loved them, but they are religious and he didn't want them to know. Anyway, what 15-year-old boy does want to talk to his parents about sex, even under normal circumstances? There is also legal precedence for a minor of sufficient maturity and intelligence to be given confidential medical treatment but does sex with a prostitute count as treatment? "Absolutely. It is absolutely part of therapy," said the psychologist, "Because it was what he wanted. People talk about a trip to Disneyland being therapeutic what's the difference? It was what he wanted." So Jack got what he wanted, and last week, he finally lost his fight with the cancer.
Is it right or wrong to grant a dying teenaged boy his wish to have sex? LUCY CLARK examines a modern ethical dilemma:
A 15 YEAR-OLD boy is terminally ill with cancer. He knows he doesn't have very long to live, and he has a dying wish. It is not to go to Disneyland or to meet his favourite actor, rock or sports star but it is this: he wants to make love to a woman.
That's what makes (IMO) the Latter-day Saint view of God so different: God never had any intention of creating a bunch of people who would serve His purposes by forever groveling at His feet.
Instead, He created them to eventually become His equals, so long as they're willing to do it His way. It might take a while, but when you've got all of eternity to accomplish the task, what's a little while?
Well said. My thoughts as well.
...I was told by a Rabbi that fornication takes place when a married person has sex with another person outside of marriage.
Uhhhh, that sounds like the description of adultery. Are you sure you got that right?
Ok, ok. It is somewhat legalistic, but the correct sin is adultry, not fornication. Both bad.
So the idea, is that men must be broken before God?
Sorta like horses, or pack mules?
This is straight out of the moral relativism classroom handbook.
The parents don't have rights. They are subjects of a socialist government that gives and takes rights as the government sees fit.
That's where we're headed if people don't realize that the Constitution doesn't give us rights, but restricts government.
/john
The real question is why would someone, such as yourself, conjure up such a malevolent and capricious being and then proclaim it virtuous to worship the abomination.
He doesn't cause it, we are the cause. And it breaks His heart countless times more than it ever would yours--after all, he made your capacity to feel. Yes, He does allow it; But the alternative is for Him to deal with the world's wickedness once and for all (like the Bible predicts will one day occur), which would leave many hanging in the wind. "He is patient, that none would perish." As I said before, it's amazing He allows us continue on.
Yes, in a sense. It's one's pride that prohibits him to be used by God, who will not force us to do His will. In that sense, it is like a horse who will not listen to his master's bidding.
My view is that since we're all eternal beings (given my LDS belief in an eventual universal resurrection prior to Final Judgment), the effects of any and all sins still apply no matter what the moral dilemma setup regarding this temporary mortal life may be.
Somebody else already framed the idea earlier: if we're going to grant him this experience because it will supposedly be otherwise denied to him due to impending death, how many other experiences of any type should we be willing to grant him now that he might miss out on otherwise? If one "sex worker" is good, why not three or five at once? He'll never have the opportunity to go to war and kill somebody, either; should we give him a gun and encourage him to "off" somebody so he can have that experience, too?
No, sort of like the Prodigal Son. I believe you are familiar with the story.
I see.
So we need to be broken, and then trained to obey, so that we can be well used.
Chattel slavery of a higher order?
It would seem so.
Doesn't sound anything like the love of a benevolent God to me.
What I was referring to was a sense of minor personal moral acts that we usually avoid because of long-term danger or harm to ourselves. If there is no long-term anymore it becomes less problematic for various "mild" sins, such as say gluttony or a sexual encounter, or having a few drinks - stuff that we'd deny or restrict to people who were looking forward to a full life.
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.