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
So what?
Are you complaining about it? Some of us consider sex a gift from God and a spiritual endeavor if it's done correctly.
And some of us consider it filthy and lude. Those that do, generally suppress their desires to do filthy and lude things and then project their own obsessions on to others.
Which category do you fit into?
All I do is describe Reality. Anyone is free to disagree with Reality if they want to.
We don't know that. We do know that she granted his wish and she didn't have to. Even if it were for the money, I stand by my statement that she showed more compassion for that boy than any of the so-called Christians who are claiming that he's burning in hell or was wrong for wanting to find out about sex before he died.
And bring on some more ludes man!
Seeing as you do that quite often, I'd have to congratulate you on your excercising that particular principle.
The more I read, the more I see that people have been following the "Judge Not" crowd.
"JUDGE RIGHTLY" is Correct, not the misquoted JUDGE NOT. This is what the devil wants you to believe. To try and shut-up the God Fearing by taking away some of the best offence a Christian has. I got news for them, it ain't working. To defend this kids actions is terrible, be it with a prostitute, a gay man, an animal. Maybe it is ok for any fantasy this kid wants, perhaps he dreams of blowing up a building. Maybe he wants to watch Jack the Ripper in action. Degrading sex that was intended for marriage to something gutter wise is sad, no wonder there is no respect for women anymore.
Click "HERE" for the FR post "Are Christians Too Nice"
I am disgusted with half the posters on this article. I wonder why they didn't vote for Clinton. Maybe they did.
Please leave flames on the article linked above. Maybe even read it before you comment.
You could always just worry about yourself instead of anyone else but I suppose that might just make your life too damn boring.
No it doesn't. It only shows how human nature demands that some folks will do anything to justify their sinfull behavior. In this case the sinful behavior of gossip and slander. That you think this is justified by the Bible only proves that the bible can be interpreted by anyone to justify their immoral behaviors.
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.