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”
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!
Did I say they were all bastions of ethics?
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.
I wouldn't call journalists the heart of the field either. We certainly don't think of them as political scientists, philosophers, or economists.
True, but for many people who do not know any better they are the arbiters of reality.
Yeah, that's something we need to change.
Need to attack the problem at the root, corporatism which is a synonym of fascism. Personally I don’t see a solution to fix things that doesn't involve violent revolution. Even if enough of the bottom 70% of workers could all get together and strike, at minimum 35% of the bottom initiating a general strike that will continue until terms are met. But even then i feel that will lead to violent militarized suppression from the owner class who will force people striking to work. Those in power have made a real mess of things.
Please stop calling everything fascism. Plain old Authoritarianism is bad too. Corporations don't want a cult of personality or huge rallies. They want people disengaged and hopeless.
I also disagree about the necessity of violence. If we get enough of a movement they can't just resort to violence. Most of the modern movements have been by mass of people in the street.
I call fascism fascism and that is what we now have, the intersection of corporate and military industrial power controlling our government and using their media outlets to spread propaganda. Fascism is marked by; the protection of corporate power, the suppression of labor power, controlled Media disseminating propaganda, disdain for human rights, disdain towards intellectualism, unification over a scapegoated class of people as a common enemy, rampant corruption and cronyism/nepotism, obsession with crime & punishment, powerful displays of nationalism, government and a preferred religion intertwining, normalized sexism, glorification of militarism, a surveillance state with militarized police forces who use secret police under the pretense of national security, and fraudulent elections. These are all the defining characteristics of fascism. And the only one of those you can argue may not be present is the last one but i would even argue that its very likely our national presidential elections have been fraudulent ever since FDR died.
You forgot a cult of personality, a belief in collective action, and state control of corporations and religion.
A fascist would tell you there's no need to suppress labor because the party takes care of it's workers. Likewise worries about human rights are overblown because the people understand they're part of a grand nationalist project. The chosen enemy of a fascist state is dissidents of any race. You're confusing Fascism with Nazism here.
There's a lot there that's also Authoritarian. Such as the secret police, displays of military power (less for pride, more as a warning), fraudulent elections, corruption and nepotism, and controlled media.
In many ways Fascism is just a populist form of Authoritarianism; An Authoritarian state where the people cheer for the death squads. The chosen enemy is the trait that stands Nazism apart. Mussolini and other Fascists did not share Hitler's belief in racial superiority.
The biggest argument against the US being Authoritarian (much less Fascist) right now is the continued existence of independent media and the Democratic Party. Also, despite claims to the contrary elections are pretty good in the US. We really did just choose the bad option. Nobody guaranteed any of the above with Democracy. We were always free to vote for the bad stuff. Democracy guarantees nothing but the ability to vote.
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
Yep. But whether their god is real or not is beside the point here.
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.
You dodging the question indicates the assumption isn't that wild.
Lmao. I'm under no obligation to tell you anything about myself.
No one said you were.
I'm an atheist and I agree with the other person
You are an atheist that listens to clergy? Why in the fuck would you ever? Seems like an astronomer saying "we should still listen to astrology, they have valid points."
No I don't, I just think you're wrong and extremely disrespectful
Won't someone think of the clergy! 🙄
Sorry I'm not sweet to the religious. I'm my experience, listening to clergy ends in child abuse at worst, guilt and pressure to join their religion at best. The clergy should go get real jobs.
I meant to me and the other commenter, not the clergy
Well clutch your pearls then.