Dying boy, 15, gets wish: losing virginity

Chicago Sun Times ^ | 12/23/01 | BY BENJAMIN ERRETT

[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

[southern rock]

Gee...I was taught to suppress my so-called 'normal physical desire' when I was a kid.

And you have turned out so well adjusted. Any other person would have turned inward and become one of those animal-obsessed old maids who just lives with a bunch of cats. ;-)

[ValerieUSA]

I sometimes think the premise of the "Make a Wish" mentality is earthbound fear, whereas a reinforcement of faith in God's Heaven would be more helpful to the terminally ill children and their families.
Does death really mean that a person will "miss out" on all the good things? That nothing better awaits? That the "self" which wanted and had a single sexual experience before death is a more complete self than one who didn't? Will he now rest in peace? That the giver of the best things - the "wishes" - is a foundation of fellow humans with good intentions and money and power? (kinda like the government)

[Dumb_Ox]

Now, what we are dealing here is a strictly logic based morality decision. We have a child who is going to die and a prostitute. The child, who I believe can make adult decisions due to his facing death and hardship in the face for so long, wants to get laid (I am not trying to be condescending, just laying out the facts).

But by your own admission, what we have here is not a rational decision, but a decision made to fulfill his hormonally-influenced desires. How is acting out a wet dream rationally defensible?

She knowingly entered a contract knowing full well she could become pregnant

A contract? Isn't prostitution still illegal in most areas of Australia? And minors cannot even enter into contracts in my area until the age of 18.

Most of us, in one form or another, have had to deal with our parents problems. That is life.

How does this truism absolve bad parents of their responsibility to ensure that any child they have is cared for?

[southern rock]

They aren't called the Ten Good Suggestions.

Read Romans. The way I understand it is, that once Christ died, the old law passed away. The new law is written in our hearts. Technically, the commandments, did in fact, become suggestions. Christians should follow them, but they are not the Law that they once were.

[Cultural Jihad]

Counterfeiting is stealing (or lying). Duh.

Ah, but it doesn't expressly state that. You are deducing that counterfeiting is condemned by Christianity. Congratulations on your big step away from legalisms and the desire to find a literal interpretation.

If you have any further questions about what Christianity teaches, go ask a priest.

[southern rock]

and this is SUPPOSED to be a conservative forum????

It IS a conservative forum. It is just not a Christian forum, or even a religious forum. There is a difference.

[bigcheese]

I would absolutely love to know the verses you speak of and the Rabbis names you speak of. But the adultery meaning is simply out of the question. That is simply a different word (as can be inferred by other laws, such as the one I mentioned in a prior post). There is, however, a Rabbinical decree that prohibits sex before marriage, but then, and I mean no offense to any fellow Jews out there, there are scores of Rabbinical decrees that seem to require a good 'stretch' to find footing within the Torah.

The controversy regarding the word adultery also meaning fornication was started by xtians, and has been maintained by xtians, in my opinion, to try and prove that the new rule was not actually a new rule. But after studying Torah for some time now, there are quite a few inferences like the one I gave mentioned above that shows fornication was neither a capital offense, nor required a sacrifice for atonement.

However, being very promiscous IS a listed offense. Again, the inference is telling.

[Cultural Jihad]

There is a difference.

And the difference is that conservatives are not moral-liberals who choose to turn a blind eye to or wink at evil.

[Cultural Jihad]

Sex is probably the one activity we have most in common with the lower species. When did it become the criteria of what you consider humanity?

But humans are supposedly no better than dogs copulating in the streets, according to the humanists.

[Neets]

What is it you people here have against or about sex????

It has to always be an ANIMALISTIC desire in YOUR BOOK??

Wanting sex is not being human???

Now I will grant you that some people want hot animalistic sex, but that does not in any way make you non-human....

Jeesh...must we Clintonparse EVERY SINGLE word people say here?????

[bigcheese]

But by your own admission, what we have here is not a rational decision, but a decision made to fulfill his hormonally-influenced desires. How is acting out a wet dream rationally defensible?

Who are you to say if it is rationally wrong? Really? Neither of us can make that judgement without guidelines of an authoritative source, such as Scriptures, but you did not seem interested in that at the start of this debate. So how do you know "getting his rocks off" is wrong? Really? Tell me logically how it is wrong?

A contract? Isn't prostitution still illegal in most areas of Australia? And minors cannot even enter into contracts in my area until the age of 18. And how many angels can fit on the head of a pin? Your dealing in minutaue that really has no bearing on this. Furthermore, we simply do not have those facts which would have a bearing on these non-bearing issues. If the fit hit the shan, you really think the judge in a pternity suit is going to look favorably upon the hooker? Or will he be reasoning along lines such as "that is her business", etc? How does this truism absolve bad parents of their responsibility to ensure that any child they have is cared for?

Whose to say the hooker would be a bad mother? Is she a hooker like a crack addled hooker? Or is she a fiscally conservative woman like some of the high price escorts? Is she married already? Who knows? Your making the assumption that she would be a bad parent or that he is missing a father.... perhaps the family of the boy would adopt him .... who knows?

Like Nietsche (sp?) before you, how can you make any assumptions / presumptions / judgements without an authoritative source like Scripture? The statements are flimsy, no backing to them. In the present context of morals being defined by you or me, Ill even say my argument sucked. There simply is no way to argue it one way or another. That baby could grow up in the most loving , nurtured enviroment.... we simply do not know.

[Cultural Jihad]

Why is it so important to make a distinction as to which species are better or worse?

Are [cockroaches] not more in tune with this earth than human beings?

Spoken like a true believer of Wiccan humanist. Why don't you just call the Founding Fathers 'specists' for their failure to recognize inalienable rights among the cockroach class of living beings? Sheesh.

[Cultural Jihad]

Why is it so important to make a distinction as to which species are better or worse?

Are [cockroaches] not more in tune with this earth than human beings?

Spoken like a true believer of Wiccan humanism. Why don't you just call the Founding Fathers 'specists' for their failure to recognize inalienable rights among the cockroach class of living beings? Sheesh.

[garbanzo]

My point is that this is an exceptional circumstance. The point is the same - most of the things you mention are either long-term or future-oriented. He was free of STDs - a virgin dying of terminal cancer. It's not clear that his act would encourage healthy young men to have sex and appropiate precautions would all-but-eliminate the risk of unintended pregnancy or contracting an STD.

Note that the exceptionality here is that it was a certainty that he was going to die soon. This issue isn't that he didn't intend to get married but rather that regardless of his intentions, his wasn't going to get married.

So he's another question - let's say some priest married him to the hooker - would that have been acceptable?

[DB]

Would you care to explain to me why it is not immoral to engage in an act that could generate a child whose father would be in no position to care for him?

So when a soldier goes off to war it is immoral for him to have sex with his wife and have child???

Now you've burnt the barn down...