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”
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.
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 :(
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.
IDK cuz you can’t encourage terminal cancer but - however preposterous it sounds - you could encourage a cannibalization kink?
Disturbing (Wiki screengrab)
Ah, the perfect bedtime reading.
His friends arranged it. There is no moral issue for the hospital or staff.
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 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 choice that u/someguy3 considers to be right?
The hospital staff still had a moral issue to consider.
The boy may not have had a girlfriend, but he clearly had friends who were good enough to do this for him. Heartwarming really.
Sounds like it worked out in the end, given the circumstances.
Agree with the university dean who said that hospitals have a particular obligation to live up to expectations that they’ll follow the law where ethically permissable.
Hospitals have no duty to keep a patient from seeing a prostitute, only to minimize harm from the potentially illegal or dangerous activity.
Sounds like everyone did the right thing.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.
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
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.
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.
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.
The way it read, I could only infer details. Without explicit information, which only fools would offer about a crime that they avoided consequences for, there’s quite a bit of wiggle. The prostitute consented to have sex with a sick teen, but they’re not in the best place. If anything, their mental health was likely below average, considering their line of work and its challenges. Teenagers aren’t exactly the best judges, either
Are you insinuating coercion? That would be assault. I’m confused about your point, just that we don’t know?
[Edit: removed misdirecting argument]
It’s wrong to cast an assumption that sex workers are bound to be in poor mental health or that their mental state should impact their professional judgement.
The teen had access to a psychologist who also worked through these decisions with them. Yes teens are dumb but this was a decision made with a lot more thought and guidance than most teens have for similar things.
Thats a really tough one.
Wild story. Totally unethical, and there’s no way to make it morally correct. Horrible situation to be put in because you feel bad for the kid who’s dying and want to give him a good time while he’s alive, but there is no good way of honoring his wish.
Totally unethical
What specifically do you feel is unethical in this situation?
I’m curious because for me, behavior that harms no-one cannot be unethical. I see no harm, so I’m very interested to know what part flags it as unethical for you?
Thanks Hegar. Usual heuristics seem to break here. Similarly wanted to ask @Kalkaline@leminal.space: “if you were face-to-face with the kid in November 2001, how would you explain the refusal?“
IMO the vast majority of underage sexual relationships are a problem because there is grooming and coercion involved. I think the spirit of the law isn’t broken here even if the letter is.
Yeah this seems to fit under the realm of palliative care to me.
deleted by creator