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.
At the same time here, as mentioned above, it's not at all clear that letting a dying kid have sex once in his life is wrong considering the circumstances. The wrong is generally considered to be in the (in this case nonexistant) long-term consequences of the behavior. If the kid wanted to smoke a pack of cigarettes before dying he should be able to do that too.
As for the legal issues, the age of consent in Britain is 16.
For example, it's generally accepted that telling a white lie to spare someone hurt or embarrassment is more ethically acceptable than being unflinchingly honest. It's accepted that lying to save someone's life is an moral stance. Or using someone's property without their consent to handle an immediate danger to life is again a moral stance.
The question here then is whether or not setting up a sexual encounter for a dying 15 year old boy represents a fundamental moral problem. I and many others here have argued that it doesn't simply because the reason for the ethical problem doesn't exist here. But if you believe that your Deity has no compassion and sets arbitrary rules (the kid isn't getting married of course) I can't stop you from believing such nonsense.
Yes, you're right. The parents should have made this decision.
The truth is it is impossible for me (and probably for anyone) to know what to do or think without being in the actual situation.
But, yes, you're right.
Baloney.
That's precisely what you meant to imply.
I don't really have an opinion on the boy having sex. But I do know that condemning the boy straight to hell is a dangerous presumption.
I won't argue with our moral-relativist brothers, but for our Christian brothers, consider this.
Christ summed up the Law into the Two Great Commandments: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength; and, love your neighbor as yourself.
It would seem to me that these two Laws would drive you to search out the rest of the Bible for answers to similiar situations for guidance. I'm thinking about David's son, who feigned illness in order to experience sex with his sister. Pretty dire consequences followed all the way around.
Will the consequences of this contemporary moral play exhibit the fulfillment of the Two Great Commandments?
As for the state of salvation of any or all the parties involved in this moral play -- in the end, the question will be 'did you believe in Me and confess my Name?' We of course can't answer those questions for these parties. We are bound by remove the logs from our own eyes and to help our brothers see move clearly.
Whethere we would meet this test in the manner God would have us choose: Thankfully, those who believe and confess, whether they choose rightly or wrongly, will have their tears wiped away by the Loving and Merciful God, in Heaven.
I would not procure a woman for my son.
You assume that just because I haven't posted it that I don't know. Fact is, I'm not going to play this silly game you have going. However, since you claim to know and haven't posted it, I may post an explaination for everybody you have been having jump through hoops.
Your claim that doing good glorifies God is at best deceptive and at worst unScriptural. Maybe if I have extra time in the next few days, I'll explain your error.
Oh, and just because many OT saints had concubines doesn't mean that God approved or that it glorified Him. Your posting seems to suggest that you have some desire for more than one wife, definitely not for the glory of God.
This is a classic example of situational ethics.
You think that there is a compelling need for the dying to experience pleasures like sex at least once before leaving the earth, but that's because everything you've got is invested in this life. Yet this life is only given us to test us before the next one (Eye has not seen, ear has not heard, nor has entered into the heart of man all that God has prepared for those who love Him). You would sacrifice the temporal for the eternal. Tell me, what good was this cheap fling for the boy now that he's dead?
...make that eternal for the temporal. I've yet to sleep :o(
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Procreation is as fundamental a drive as breathing. Expression of one's genetic predisposition to reproduce is, I would believe without doubt, under the heading of "pursuit of happiness."
"Exactamente", as my Panamanian friend used to say. Anymore, I hardly ever respond to the scripture baiters who love to argue; it's a waste of time.
Basically you are saying that at 15, you or someone else knows better than the parents who are morally and legally responsible and to that I say ... hogwash.
I've made my position clear and as far as I am concerned the decision must remain with the parents, not some do gooders reaching in from the outside.
WRT Doctor Client privelege ... I amke it clear to every doctor my kids go to that the business is contingent on full disclosure to us parents until they are adults. Sorry of that ruffles you ... but as the one legally, morally and financially responsible ... that's the way it is. I would never try and propose that at your house it should be my way ... but for you or someone else to say that in such circumstances this parental right "thing" needs to be bent is morally indefensable.
Like I said though, I have made my point and others can read and determine for themselves.
I would never propose (short of abuse of this boy ... and denial of sexual gratification at 15 is NOT abuse) that anyone, including the government or the Doctor, step in between such circumstances and the parents of the one experiencing them. If the parents asked for advise or help in such a matter ... fine. Or, if the parents wanted to make this happen and were willing to face the consequences, fine (even though I would strongly disagree and would believe that legal consequences should be applied if possible).
But I would never propose that anyone but the parents come to the final conclusion with their boy. To step around that violates one of the most fundamental principles our society and (IMHO) our liberty is based upon. Merry Christmas to you and yours and (even if you may not believe) God's richest blessings to you and yours during the holidays and throughout the year.
Regards.
Exactly! That's what bothers me: the involvment of all these meddlers, these"do-gooders" who lead the kid down the primrose path in accordance with their beliefs about what is right and what is wrong, and freeze out the parents. Strictly from the "tea and Sympathy" school.
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.