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
BTW, You do know that in the occult there is a name for letting the bible fall open to whereever it may in 'answer' to a question or prayer, didn't you? Look it up.... there is a name for it (though I don't remeber stuff like that off the top of my head), and it is used by occultists.
And who is criticizing the boy rather than the facilitators and pimps who were supposed to be caring for him?
It's illegal. It's immoral. It's wrong. It violates the laws of God. Those are some pretty strong reasons.
I guess if we want to throw away those things, there would be nothing wrong with him indulging in a fantasy of robbing a bank either.
And by the way he's not "having a little sensual fun with the opposite sex". Call it what it is...he's f***ing a whore. Nothing more.
Do you guys work for the government or something?
Total figment of your overactive imagination. (Too many suppressed normal physical urges, perhaps.)
my point was that you are encouraging this sick kid to break the law
Your point? I never even heard about this kid until after he was already dead.
...that its ok...
Judge not...
walk a mile in his shoes...
cast the first stone...
See any pattern here?
All you people who are making excuses for this sick kid are wrong.
Not making excuses...supporting his decision, Queen Solomon.
If your kid was sick, I can't believe you would encourage him and give approval for him to break the law,and/or lose his morals.
If your child was starving, and stealing food was his only means to survive, would you condemn him?
What if something happens and he lives?
Even better.
No wonder society is like it is today with all these pregnant teenagers. You make poor role models.
Your life sounds positively horrible. So many people to judge...so little time.
Nope. Was a long time ago when I was 15, and it was pretty important to me at the time.
Some savvy libertarians already realize this and just don't say much about it, knowing that as bad as things are, the moral sensibilities of most Americans still have not rotted to the degree of corruption needed to allow them to easily accept or tolerate adult-child sex. To spare libertarianism early bad press, they are content to let that sleeping mangy mongrel lie for now.
Other libertarians still deny that their idiotic and feeble-brained "consent über alles" philosophy can offer no defense to adult-child sex. But "scientists" have already declared children capable of consenting to sexual intercourse with adults, leaving libertarians with no objective basis to refuse to allow "consensual" adult-child sex.
In time they'll accept and embrace even pedophilia. I won't. But then I'm a bigoted, intolerant, hateful, Christian fundamentalist statist.
Thanks for your post!
And your "opinion" is backed by which study? What specific scientific facts? Who's research? Where was it published?
Don't go laying that pure unadulterated CRAP at the feet of parents. You have no right. You have no proof of that statement. Shame on you!
So, you're comparing his having consensual sex with a prostitute with robbing a bank (stealing people's money)? If you think those two things are on the same moral plane, then I'm afraid I can't help you.
They are on the same moral plane in Gods eyes. What's really the pisser is that my even fantasizing about stealing a pack of gum from the store is on the same moral plane also.
But if you want to condone an activity that's illegal, immoral and wrong, you go right ahead. You're not alone.
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.