alt-text (full)
Screenshot of news:
“Dying boy, 15, gets wish: losing virginity Chicago Sun Times ^ | 12/23/01 | BY BENJAMIN ERRETT Posted on 12/23/2001, 6:26:24 AM 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”
timallengrunt.wav
Until you think of humans as merely the biological ape creatures we are, free from Western social mores and norms and free from laws that do not check for situational nuances, then you cannot fully understand how this is not an ethical dilemma.
When I worked in a brothel an alarming amount of father’s, uncles, brothers etc. would bring in underage boys, or more frequently young men who has just turned 18. Like they thought it would set them up better in life, like finishing college of something. Gender roles are horrible for everyone involved. Support kid getting dying wish but seriously question if maybe things could be better because there’s much more to life than sex
I grew up in an evangelical Christian household. I was taught constantly that sex was an amazing experience and basically the best fun someone could have without drugs, but you definitely weren’t allowed to do it. This message was repeated for 20 some years.
When I hit puberty this meant I got the illustrious combo of constantly thinking about sex and constantly feeling guilty about thinking about sex.
When I finally did have sex it was fun, but like, no where near as exciting as it had been hyped up to be. It was kind of a let down, but at least I had that knowledge now.
I can absolutely understand why young men fall into the incel trap or harbour objectifying opinions of others. And if your father fell into that trap, well, you’re gonna have troubled teenage years that will be even more difficult to find normalcy from.
Who gives a FUCK what the clergy think??? Ask the scientists and be done with it, otherwise you may as well just open a damn suggestion box and let any old moron have their say.
The only experience clergy have here is the “sex with underage children” part.
I think ethicists should be consulted, not just scientists.
A lot of people think the clergy are good at figuring out ethical stuff. To be fair they get a lot of education on ethics in relation to their religion. So a clergy person who operates in good faith (haha but I couldn’t think of a better way to state it) could actually be a good resource. One operating in bad faith though can do a lot of damage.
Oh yeah, the clergy is so well known for their ethics… If you ignore the rampant sexual abuse, and their disgustingly callous attempts at covering up by shuffling literal pedophiles to other parishes where they can continue to sexually abuse children.
But sure, if you ignore all that institutionalized, systemic sexual abuse of minors, then yeah they’re great with ethics!
Hard disagree. Clergy are all full of shit and most even realize it on some level. I’d take a homeless drunk person’s advice over any member of clergy. They are all pedophiles, hucksters, morons, or cultists.
I don’t agree. I’ve met some clergy that obviously have a sincere belief and were willing to counsel people without bringing God into the discussion. But I will admit they seemed like they already wanted to do that kind of work; not that seminary or their church brought that out in them.
You can believe something sincerely, while still being completely wrong. In fact, it happens all of the time
sincere belief…
I covered that. Those are the morons. Religious ethics is an oxymoron.
Sure. Be careful with those edges, you might cut yourself.
🙄 I’m sure your religion is the infallible one right? I think you are also in the moron category.
I think you don’t know me or my personal views on spirituality at all and you’re making some wild assumptions.
I’m an atheist and I agree with the other person
Where the fuck were those conversations on ethics during the spanish inquisition, or the opening of the flood gates that was the catholic church pedophilia sexual abuse scandal that seems to never end? Or had they not figured out ethics at that point?
Unfortunately ethics education does not equal ethical actions. Ethics have also seriously evolved since the Inquisition.
I would argue they’ve evolved in the wrong direction. Case in point what’s happening in gaza.
All of Ethics has evolved in the wrong direction? Religious ethics? Jewish ethics? Or Israeli religious radical ethics?
Because you’re going to have a hard time finding someone who practices Ethics supporting Israel’s war crimes.
I would say the ethics of humanity as a whole. it may be hard to find someone with a true ethical backbone who supports Israel. But with every reputable journalistic outlet supporting this level of blatant war criminality it seems that in the mainstream sense at least, ethics have devolved a century in the last 50 years. Yes some people like us see a duck and call it a duck. But you cant really say that is the direction the field of ethics has headed in this time regardless of what people are being taught in ethics classes. When all the major news outlets (circularly owned by the same bunch of wall street military and prison industry profiteers) are entirely unethical then isn’t it fair to say the concept of ethical behavior in our society has certainly regressed?
Where ethics matter are where they are put into practice and it seems obvious to me that ethics as a school of philosophy/social silence does not have a meaningful role in the actions of our leaders and the news outlets insulating them from consequence at every turn. Ethics have taken a back seat to continuous growth and corporate militsrism.
Every time I see one of the many trolley posts I think that there are more nuanced dilemmas then that.
Surprisingly wholesome for 196.
Sometimes the rules need to be ignored to treat people with a little dignity.
Right? I’m not saying we should throw the doors open and let the pedos go after teenagers but denying that they have a sexual desire is not it either. This is why we do sex health class before, or at the beginning of, puberty. There’s also a huge problem with people assuming that sick and disabled people can’t be sexual.
I’ve seen this post when it was posted, there were still no comments. I waited, read the comments now, and I still don’t know how to feel about this.
Wow.
EDIT: Some of the comments on the repost on that site, 400 comments, are great.
Well, that explains it. I always wondered what Socialized Medicine was… now I know…
People used to get married all the time at 15. What ever happened to traditional values?
It seems like this site is very religious, so there is lots of moralizing, claiming that the boy had done a “mortal sign” among other things.
Cool cool cool so that is kinda fucking heartbreaking :(
ah, this explains some of my own experiences. thanks for the info
Calling his emotional state “skin hunger” was definitely sabotaging his chances.
This reminds me of the time where someone in Germany consented to being killed and canalized. Like it’s obviously bad bc murder, but like, he also wanted it so like??? Like maybe the prostitute should have said no bc sex with a minor is wrong bc they can’t consent, but at the same time nobody would be mad at the kid for wanting this.
The age of consent in Australia is 16, and he was 15 and wouldn’t have made it to that age. I think as far as maturity goes, when he was facing death and had to come to terms with that, that he would meet the burden of consenting to the act ~12 months early.
So the prostitute could have been 16?
Not sure about back then, but these days there’s a minimum age for sex workers of 18.
I guess the question then becomes if you’re willing to cross the line of the law, how far? Assume a consistent 6 months to live. 15 is apparently okay. What about 14? 13? 12?
And it will get to a point, I would hope, no provider would want to participate.
I feel like there should be psych screenings for any provider who might be willing to help a kid out.
Disturbing (Wiki screengrab)
There’s also a Rammstein song about it (“Mein Teil”).
Ah, the perfect bedtime reading.
IDK cuz you can’t encourage terminal cancer but - however preposterous it sounds - you could encourage a cannibalization kink?
His friends arranged it. There is no moral issue for the hospital or staff.
The hospital staff wanted to raise money themselves to hire a prostitute for him, so yes, there very clearly was a moral question for them to consider, even if in the end they didn’t go through with it personally.
ethicists are still at odds over whether it was the right thing to do.
The key words are “to do”, which they didn’t. Nothing to “still” be at odds about.
Ethical and moral issues can be considered in the abstract.
Self reflection is an important part of growth.
So a moral issue is suddenly not a moral issue if you make the right choice?
The problem with many ethical delimmas is time. Inaction, whether intentional or introduced by debating what is ‘right’ can still cause harm.
“If we wait around long enough, this problem will no longer be a problem.” -Many medical ethics boards
The moral issue would be with the prostitute for sleeping with a minor I thought
Its not like it could mess up the kids life. There never was any harm to be done in this particular case.
the ONLY thing that I find gives me a side step was the statement:
“it demeans women and reduces the sexual act to just being a physical act”
I think it has some merit. Though I didn’t actually pick up on the gender of the prostitute (I guess we’re all assuming). It still breaks the importance of the emotional connection to a sexual partner as you’re learning about early adulthood. I don’t think real harm came to the boy in this instance particularly, but I couldn’t imagine being that sex worker. I would do it, but shit, that’s gotta follow you a little bit your entire life and something you would always think about. Probably would be my last “John” to be honest.
The other harm comes from people reading the article, especially young boys. It encourages the mindset that the sex act is the important thing one must conquer, not opening up and being vulnerable to a partner to share that experience with. It’s super fucking tough though, like finding him just a date would be better but all the implications of what that would entail for the people involved is just heartbreaking.
It encourages the mindset that the sex act is the important thing one must conquer, not opening up and being vulnerable to a partner to share that experience with.
So, um, dont take this the wrong way but that sounds like a female viewpoint, am I correct?
If I’m right, what you cant know viscerally is that 15 year old males are unlikely to appreciate that level of nuance and I dont think its a viable target to expect that from them. The hormones rage extremely hard at 15-- its not a matter of willingness, but one of irretrievably stolen focus. A 15 year old male’s response to stimulus is extraordinary and singular. What you look for comes after age 28 or so. Maybe I’m not average in this regard but I think its fairly universal for my peers as well.
Am male, stupidly so and grew up in the south where an active sex life as a youthful-lad was encouraged and I definitely filled that role. I concur that what you’ve said is the most common perception in our circles and definitely in western media as a whole. After getting older and actually talking to people about their childhoods and those from other areas of the world, I don’t believe it to be a “destined/hormone raging” outcome that’s necessary, but often taught/learned from peers.
If it was, we wouldn’t be encouraging male individuals to find an outlet for their anger besides violence. You’re also completely scapegoating like females don’t have urges or hormones of which they have to battle with. There’s whole societies out there that don’t have the problems we run into because of our views on sexuality (but come with their own side effects like loneliness or low birth rates). It’s also individualistic, everyone has different things they’re dealing with on puberty and chemical changes. The fact that all males get the “it’s hormones” excuse should be a red flag automatically that triggers further evaluation.
The boy may not have had a girlfriend, but he clearly had friends who were good enough to do this for him. Heartwarming really.
Setting aside the ethics of it all, really seems like the psychologist could have just shut the fuck up and have it published on their own deathbed.
There’s a wider problem going on with people assuming that only healthy, young, attractive people have a sex life. Certainly not anyone on disability or with a terminal diagnosis. Case studies in ethics like these serve to highlight that humans are sexual beings and has impacts on everything from society’s interest in banning/regulating sex work to medical ethics. (Although it’s still 100% bad to sleep with patients…)
Strongly disagree. The patient remains anonymous so not a breach of confidentiality. Beyond that, there is value to society in everyone seeing and contemplating the ethics of a situation like this. Because it is an extreme, unusual circumstance it forces you to examine your moral and belief systems to try and determine what you would have done and what you believe is “right.” Such introspection is critical for all of us to grow and hopefully do the best thing when we are thrust into an unusual moral dilemma.
The unexamined life is not worth living.
Agreed. The psychologist had no role in this and should have shut up, even after the boy died… They aired a patients issues when they had nothing to do with the act in question. Abysmal unprofessional behavior and terrible judgement on that persons part.
The identity of everyone involved was protected, moral dilemmas are almost daily occurrences in medicine and there is a specific procedure for it. If every ethicist had to wait until on their deathbed to reveal their secrets the scientific community would suffer greatly and you would lose so many opportunities to make someone’s life better
A prostitute? That’s so morose and sorrowful. That they couldn’t locate a human being that would for no financial interest just fulfil his dying wish and do a nice, memorable, worthful thing for themselves too. This fricking world.
I like how the religious people asked were either “yeah sex with kids is fine” or moralising about prostitution in general. None expressed any concern about the fact that an adult had sex with a minor, or even acknowledged that it could be an issue necessary to discuss. Almost like religious people are not the ones you should go to to find the answer to moral questions.
I’m wondering why clergy were consulted. I can’t imagine a worse place to go for insight into the ethics of human sexuality. Was it a Catholic hospital?
I agree with you, but human beings have been doing the whole “spiritual advice” thing forever.
Most people are religious.
half of the clergy said “what’s your problem”, which would usually mean “the answer to whatever you just asked is so obviously ‘no’ that you’re a bad person just for asking it: what’s your problem”. i have to respect that some topics are simply off-limits for some people: if you’re going to someone asking for advice about a moral quandary and their convictions are strong enough they don’t wanna discuss the topic beyond “hell no”, i don’t fault them for that.
I interpreted “what’s your problem” as “what’s the issue with doing it”, since the article says the issue “really polarized them”, and the other response was opposed to the action.
if it read “what’s the problem”, i’d agree. otherwise, i’ll toss it to whoever’s well-versed in Chicago speech styles. perhaps the passive-aggressiveness of Seattle is coloring my view 🙃
![Dying boy, 15, gets wish: losing virginity [Chicago Sun Times, Dec. 23, 2001]](https://sh.itjust.works/pictrs/image/7b8e3ee7-92c4-4ea1-950e-95f8b1c230fe.jpeg){kind=link}