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.
I don't live in fear--only those whose sins are unpaid need to do that (1John 4:18). Again, you don't understand the seriousness of your sin before a perfect God. Job had the right attitude (Job 1:22; 42:7), you do not yet.
If you tried to give my boy this kind of "help" I can promise, the moment I heard of it, either you or I would not be conscience or available for comment in quick order.
The same goes for these idiot "professionals". It is not their place, legally or morally to decide in this circumstance what should have occurred with that boy. That they would do this on his death bed, without so much as talking to his parents is sick and the hieght of unmititgated interference in affairs that do not concern them. Do you have children" Would you agree to someone making such a decision for your fifteen year old without your knowledge? I cannot imagine you would ... say if they decided to do something with him that you might be utterly against.
These parents may have made a different decision than me, and I will not judge them for it because God is plenty capable of that judgement in my opinion ... the ill here is that the decision was made and carried out unilaterally without the knowledge or consent of the parents. I would shed my blood to stop such a decision until myself and my wife had the opportunity to make the decision with our son.
Folks, if people cannot see this ... if people condone this ... if we are not free ... if we do not DEMAND the freedom to deal with our own children in such circumstances, then we might as well cash it in. I for one will not ... and will go to my death fighting such interference by government or other "do gooders" to my last breath.
Sorry for the rant ... but this is utterly beyond the pale IMHO.
... like I said, the decision was not the nurse's, it was not the pshyc's, it was not yours, and it was not the kid's ... it was legally and morally the responsibility of the parents. They should have been involved and that is the crux of the issue here ... not all of the arguing about religion or what others think of having sex.
The people who counted were unilaterally left out of it. I am sure you would not go for this if it were your child, particularly if the "help" was something you were abjectly against or felt was harmful to your own.
But, like I said before ... sorry for the rant. Having five kids of my own the very idea of it set me off.
But, IMHO, that is not the crux of the issue here. All of the arguing and wrangling about religion is a side issue to the over-riding issue of these "do gooders" leaving the parents out of the decision cycle all together.
As I have said before ... the decision was not the nurse's, it was not this Psyc's and it was not entirely the kid's. The parents are legally and morally responsible and leaving them out of the loop was the moral and legal issue here.
Now, I have my own beliefs on morality and they are strong ... and they involve God who (IMHO) is far different than you characterize Him. But that is fine ... we can reasonably discuss that and you can try and convince me with the "logic" of the world and I can try with my faith to help if we are so inclined.
But, to take such a fundamental decision regarding the welfare of this boy, on his dying bed, out of the hands of the parents is just flat wrong. That goes beyind "reasonably" discussing anything. It is a fundamental moral and legal violation IMHO.
Having said that though, I would support these parents in their moral decision regarding their own son even if I disagreed with it. This is because if someone can come in and take that decision from them ... they can come and take it from me. And I would fight that attempt with my life's blood.
I geuss I am too emotional about this, this evening, because of this fundamental issue and the fact that I have five of my own kids and am really incensed at this particular set of events.
So, rather than clog up this thread with any more of this ... I'll just let it rest.
Merry Christmas to you too.
Your rather thoughtless reply..."Implying that the poster is a pedophile, makes you yet another reactionary jackass."
Have you been drinking tonight, or did you just bump your head? You sir are the jackass, for nowhere in my post have I made such an outrageous accusation, or even the implication of such.
Obviously we can see what is on your mind tonight though.
My post was to be certain to never allow LiveFree2000 to make decisions for my children in my absence. It was Livefree2000 that posted that he'd be certain that his daughter was sexually gratified if she were dying!(see post 315)
Normally, you have interesting replies to contribute, but your vomit this time earns you the lack of reading comprehension award of the night. Sleep it off OWK!
Have a good night
It's also instructive to remember that the kid isn't an object here but a person who at least has some say in his own affairs. While I wouldn't make what happened here a general rule, sometimes rules have to be bent for a given situation.
Moral relativism is at an all time low here lately.
Very sad indeed.
It is not the nurse's, the psyc's or the kids decision. Otherwise, we would make 15 year old's adults ... they are not.
If the parents knew and they made this decision ... they would have to live with the consequences of it, some of them probably legal; as in contributing to the delinquency of a minor in most states. That is because in most places, something like this is viewed as wrong . That wrong is not made right because the child is drawing his dieing breath. But in that case, if the parents approved and arranged it, it would be for them to answer for and for some local district attorney to determine ... irrepsective of how wrong I felt it was from a moral or religious standpoint, and irrespective of how "right" you felt it was, or how "feel good".
The point is, it is not our decision to make. it is ultimately the parents in consultation with their child. When someone else takes it upon themselves to over-rode or unilaterally ignore that ... they are standing into danger sure enough IMHO.
When we decide it is someone else's decision ... then we have aborgated parental rights and we can kiss any symbolence of liberty good bye IMHO. At that point, we will find ourselves having our own form of "Jugend" created for us by the state. ... in fact we are well down that path as it is.
It's dressed up under the name "situational ethics"--relativism like you say. It's the result of years of post-modernist philosophy etching away at what little Christian-influenced culture remains. The most tragic thing is that those who buy into this logical fallacy usually consider themselves more enlightened and 'righteous' than those who believe in absolutes.
Fact has been usurped by feeling.
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.