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
Anyway, is that scripture in my half or yours that says: "When there is no Law, there is no sin"? Interesting thought to throw into the mix.
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.
Leave it to you to put that image in my mind. I never once imagined Jesus in that way, EVER. You are a piece of work.
Quote them and live by them all. OR dont quote at all and just stick to the "new" rules.
This not just addressed to you but to everyone who is upset over this. Why is "no sex until marriage" a moral principle - is it an arbitrary one - just like say not wearing a hat on alternate Tuesdays - or does it serve a purpose for the happiness and benefit of mankind? Even if you claim its origin is divine, then do you believe that God makes arbitrary incomphrehensible rules?
The usual answer is that pre-marital sex ruins or damages your future marital relations. In this case, there wasn't to be a future marital relationship so in this case is pre-marital sex wrong?
Having had cancer at a young age,I know there are a lot of things one wishes for,sex is one of them,more time to do everything is most of the other.
I was lucky,now I had the time,wish I could say I always used it wisely but I didn't.
I really am having a problem with the folks on this thread that don't have any compassion for this kid,or the prostitute for that matter.Who's to say she didn't have some compassion and show this kid a loving time?
Now go put something warm on.
Merry Christmas to you too.
Do they all just suppose it was wham bam where's my money? Just because hookers are sitting on a goldmine doesn't mean some of them don't have a heart of gold.
That is an usually good point.
Well...it could create unwanted pregnancies, encourage others to do the same thing and spread disease. Then you must agree with the schools handing out condoms? After all...I doubt any of those high school boys intend on getting married to the little whores..I mean girls.
On the meaning and whatnot of the "New" Testament, and I use quotes because I do not belive in it, I prolly have everybody in here outranked in terms of growing up in a fundy enviroment. Know it? Good lord, I must have read it a hundred times (literally). I know the differences in "just have to say the words" xtian denominations, "have to have works" denominations, "mixture of two" denominations.
It is very simple. One place it says "thos who believe in him will have salvation" and another place it says "faith without works is dead". Leaving aside the errors like Timothy saying there was more souls that went down to egypt than the Torah actually states, how do you reconcile jut the above contradiction?
Gee, you're right.
At age 15 it's more like 3 seconds of physical climax, against an eternity of suffering.
And all these self-indulgent folks DON'T think anybody (at any age past-potty training) has ANY self-control of ANY body functions ???
We have been told the results of refusing the Law .... I'm going to pretend that those who "want" a nicely liberal, peaceful, ignorant, get-everybody-to-heaven God exists .... but there are dozens of Gospels PROMISING hell to those who follow their physical want-be-do and don't request forgiveness, practice self-control, and act correctly while living.
Even more showing the hypocrisy and ultimate failure of trying living for only a pleasureable life on earth.
We don't know what happened on this boy's deathbed between him and God ..... but we do know that his "friends" aided and encouraged not only a felony (sex with a minorr), but a misdemeanor (prostitution) and the "non-criminal" penalties of disobeying the hospital staff, his parents, and the hospital rules.
What he did with God when he died I don't know. Let uts hope this behavior was not an indication of that ... but soemthing tells me that he did not truly ask forgiveness for his sins.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahah!
Ill ask again... WHERE in the Torah/Tanach (your "old" testament) is fornication a sin?
HINT: ITS NOT THERE. So, suppose this was a Jewish boy. Are you now damning him because he broke one of the "new" laws?
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.