368

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”

Source

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] JPAKx4@lemmy.blahaj.zone 38 points 3 days ago

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.

[-] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 14 points 3 days ago

IDK cuz you can’t encourage terminal cancer but - however preposterous it sounds - you could encourage a cannibalization kink?

[-] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 13 points 3 days ago

Wild

Disturbing (Wiki screengrab)

[-] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago

Ah, the perfect bedtime reading.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] thebigslime@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

Oh man, the Last Podcast on the Left series on it was a good one. Dude was fucked up.

[-] Entropywins@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Excuse me... all of last podcast on the left episodes are good ones!

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Zagorath@aussie.zone 53 points 3 days ago

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.

[-] TaviRider@reddthat.com 19 points 3 days ago

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?

[-] theangryseal@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

I agree with you, but human beings have been doing the whole “spiritual advice” thing forever.

Most people are religious.

[-] colin@lemmy.uninsane.org 18 points 3 days ago

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.

[-] SmoochyPit@lemmy.ca 47 points 3 days ago

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.

[-] colin@lemmy.uninsane.org 2 points 2 days ago

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 🙃

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

"What's your problem with it?" Could also be read as the end of an ethical analysis. If the teenager is going to die then it's not exactly going to be harmful psychologically, and if all parties are consenting, demanding even, then you get down to that last question.

It's funny to assume all priests are pedos but that's a wild assumption from that sentence.

[-] Oestradiolo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 39 points 3 days ago

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.

[-] Chiarottide@lemmy.world 35 points 3 days ago

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

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

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...)

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Determinism@kbin.earth 19 points 3 days ago

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.

[-] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 39 points 3 days ago

They might have made or ruined that prostitute’s month. That’s a heavy situation to be introduced to. Glad the kid got some amount of comfort in his final days.

[-] untorquer@lemmy.world 18 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

The way the article is written it looks like they focused heavily on consent. Judging by the deep focus on ethics and the professionalism expressed in this decision that presumably means consent for the sex worker as well. They were probably brought in on the discussion for a while before the session to work on boundaries and means.

None of this reads as a rush job.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] Simulation6@sopuli.xyz 8 points 2 days ago

Every time I see one of the many trolley posts I think that there are more nuanced dilemmas then that.

[-] user224@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 3 days ago

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.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 24 Dec 2024
368 points (98.4% liked)

196

16748 readers
2608 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS