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
Me: "So let the boy murder a 7-11 clerk for some bubble gum, eh, since he's immune to the death penalty?"
You: "No he has no right to take others with him or to harm other people. ... I have no idea what neural circuits allow you to make an analogy between murder and [consensual] sex ..."
But would you rob him of his own free will choice to do as he pleases, since he is on his death bed? It was you who set up the criteria. Don't blame me when you don't like the logical extension of your own argument or the unintended consequences of your own ideology.
An act can be immoral for more than a single reason. In the murder case there are two reasons - the long term consequences to the perp and the violation of the rights of the victiim. In the case of having consentual sex, by definition, there is no violation of rights so only one factor has to be considered.
Agree there.
Indubitably your definition is as faulty as your spelling. But perhaps Einstein was a lousy speller, too, eh?
I think Father Torque summed it up quite nicely...and I doubt God will be condeming that boy to eternal hell for doing what he did.
You almost sound as if there is something UNDERNEATH that you can't let out.
Yep and a jealous God. Imagine yourself "THE" all powerful one of the universe. Would you like it if some jerks just sat there and spit on your commandments. Then when you made a way for them to be forgiven of those sins, by trusting in your "son" and turning from their evil ways. You just said , ahhh ohh well... kids will be kids. NOPE... God is a God of Justice and Love. But he can NOT stand Sin... and this act was SIN...
Indubitably so. What are 'opinons'?? Ha!
Do you have anything valid to say, cause the above is just pure hogwash. Seem to me the spewing is on your end.
That's never in doubt. Your question was raised by Stalin, too, when he asked how many divisions the Pope has.
I've cheated death twice. There is a reason for that. I KNOW FOR A FACT that God isn't one of these people that send every so called 'infidel' to Hell. If he was, I wouldn't be here today. I do my best and try and life a good life, but I'm not perfect.
I know that God doesn't like sin, but there he also knows that there are differences between sins. It's one thing for a termanally ill kid getting laid, and another for married man cheating on his wife. It's not like this is theft, murder, not loving your neighbor, etc.
BTW - I think many people here, sending him to hell, are forgetting the 2nd Great Commandment. "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Observe that Our Lord did not say "he who is without lust" or "he who has never fornicated," but "he who is without sin."
Actually you are just another taking another version of the misguided JUDGE NOT group thinking. Please read my post#522 on Judge Rightly.
The Woman Caught In Adultery
Does the story of the woman caught in adultery, forgiven and released (John 8:3-11) negate the death penalty?
God Forgave Adulterers Before
Gomer was an adulteress yet God forgave her (Hos. 3:1). Still, He demanded that His people obey His law (Hos. 4:6).
King David committed adultery and murder (2 Sam. 11). Yet God forgave him (Psalm 32:1-5).
It was a conscious decision on God’s part to not execute David. As Nathan said to David:
As Nathan said to David:
"The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die. However… by this deed you have given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme…" 2 Sam. 12:13
Still, God’s law remained in effect (Ps. 1:2; 19:7; 78:1, 5-8; 89:30-32; 119).
God forgave the New Testament adulterer just as He forgave Old Testament adulterers, in neither instance revoking His law. God has all authority to forgive the criminal and disregard temporal punishment. Contrariwise, Men must obey God and cannot ignore punishment.
The Pharisees Wanted to Trap Christ
The Pharisees wanted to accuse Jesus of rebelling against the Roman Empire:
This [the Pharisees] said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. John 8:6
Rome had revoked the Jews’ authority to put a criminal to death (John 18:31). A straight-forward answer to the Pharisees would have brought Jesus into premature conflict with Rome before His "hour had come." Jesus solved this problem stating, "He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first" (John 8:7). Christ often frustrated the Pharisees giving clever answers that thwarted their wicked intentions (Mat. 22:15-22; 21:21-27; Mark 12:13-17; Luke 20:20-26).
Jesus Did Not Repeal The Law
Without the law, lawlessness cannot exist. Yet as Christ said, "because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold" (Mat. 24:12). Christ will throw "those who practice lawlessness… into the furnace of fire" (Mat. 13:41-42).
Jesus was born under the Old Testament law:
...God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law. Gal. 4:4
The Mosaic law was still in effect in the New Testament according to Jesus:
"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets... Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great..." Mat. 5:17-19
And Jesus said to him, "See that you tell no one; but go your way, show yourself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded as a testimony to them." Mat. 8:4
"The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do..." Mat. 23:2-3
[Jesus said,] "Did not Moses give you the law, yet none of you keeps the law? ... Moses therefore gave you circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and you circumcise a man on the Sabbath. If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath, so that the law of Moses should not be broken, are you angry with Me because I made a man completely well on the Sabbath?" John 7:19-23
Some argue that all this changed after the resurrection. Yet after His resurrection, Jesus said:
"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations... teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you." Mat. 28:19-20
And years later, "James and all the elders" said to Paul:
"You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law." Acts 21:20
Paul Used The Law
Paul teaches that the unrepentant world is still under the law, and that the law is designed to show guilt and to bring people to Christ:
But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless... and for sinners... for murderers... for sodomites, for kidnappers, for perjurers... 1 Tim. 1:8-10
All the world is under the law:
Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God... Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law. Rom. 3:19, 31
Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. Gal. 3:24-25
Christians who are untutored in the evangelistic role of the law oppose the foundation of the criminal code upon God’s law.
Turn the Other Cheek
"You have heard that it was said, `An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also." Mat. 5:38-39
Pacifists have an unworkable interpretation of this passage. Imagine applying the pacifist view to a woman being raped? Does a father tell his daughter to not resist the rapist? Pacifist father to daughter being raped: "Don’t resist the evil man, honey. Remember, Jesus said, `Love your enemy.’ If he wants you for one hour, stay with him two."
Rather, this teaching is similar to Paul’s teaching, "Do not avenge yourselves," knowing that the government is to bring wrath and vengeance against the perpetrator. The command to not avail oneself of "an-eye-for-an-eye" is not a strictly New Testament concept. Many falsely presume that this is a New Testament teaching which opposes Old Testament teachings. However, the command to avoid personal vengeance was just as applicable to Old Testament believers as to us. "Do not say, ‘I will do to him just as he has done to me; I will render to the man according to his work" (Prov. 24:29). Graciousness from the believer in his personal life is an enduring virtue and not a new concept.
Further, a slap "on your right cheek" would normally be a back-handed slap such as an insult. A punch to the face would usually land on the left cheek, as most men are right-handed Thus Jesus was not talking about a full-fledged violent attack, an attempted murder or a rape.
Jesus was not here repealing the Mosaic law, but was teaching patience, forgiveness, and self control for the individual.
To you and me, there is varied degrees of sin, but I am afraid that sin is sin is sin to God. Yep one white lie = one mass murder to God. All buy a one way ticket to Hell if you don't ask for the blood of Jesus to cover your sins. Gotta accept or take the trip (once your reach the age of accountability).
And who are these "many people here"? I asked someone else to list these "hundred" of people who allegedly condemned the boy to hell, but he was unable to, too.
But back to the main point: How do hospital employees who chip in to rent a woman's body, whose soul was purchased already with the blood of Christ, conform to the Greatest Commandment? I know that ideologues like to think that spoiling kids in general is a way of showing what they think of as love, but really not.
I do not believe that those that lie to their parents about a drinking party for example as a kid will face the same fate as a mass murder that does not care about what he did. That's not the God I believe in.
And I would not love a God that was like that, as I would consider that hypocracy and murder. However, I do not believe that is how it is. That's my fate that I will face.
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.