Dying boy, 15, gets wish: losing virginity [Chicago Sun Times, Dec. 23, 2001]
Dying boy, 15, gets wish: losing virginity [Chicago Sun Times, Dec. 23, 2001]
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”
This should have never been in the news, publicized or judged.
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.
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!
I think ethicists should be consulted, not just scientists.
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.
Think of it like the old chicken pox strategy, just get it over with so a person can move on.
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.
100% normal and undeserving of examination
, they said after a (brief) examination
😉
Occasionally stuff is good to debate just to make sure, this issue was at least worth a few minutes of involved parties’ time
But then once you ascertain a situation is so uniquely consequence free… Yes, doesn’t need much more thought after that. Let dying children get their wishes!
Surprisingly wholesome for 196.
Sometimes the rules need to be ignored to treat people with a little dignity.
Until you realize that on 4chan there's a decent chance that this is some low key "age of consent is too high" shit.
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.
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.Agreed on all counts
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.
Cool cool cool so that is kinda fucking heartbreaking :(
Calling his emotional state "skin hunger" was definitely sabotaging his chances.
ah, this explains some of my own experiences. thanks for the info
timallengrunt.wav
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.
There's also a Rammstein song about it ("Mein Teil").
Oh man, the Last Podcast on the Left series on it was a good one. Dude was fucked up.
Excuse me... all of last podcast on the left episodes are good ones!
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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
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...)
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.
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.
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
Every time I see one of the many trolley posts I think that there are more nuanced dilemmas then that.
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.
It's weird to me that I would probably feel differently if the gender was reversed. Then again, a girl also probably wouldn't need to get a prostitute involved, considering how teenage boys are.
And yet they probably should... Because of how teenage boys are.
I'm a bit surprised the friends couldn't find a teenage girl to pity fuck the boy dying of cancer - I definitely would have done it - but that's also an awful situation for everyone involved.
There were friends that were not peers involved who probably wanted to find a sex worker who could provide a medically and psychologically safe session to the boy.
If he's dying he's likely not able to have sex with zero health considerations, and can you imagine being a teenage girl and holding the knowledge that you pity fucked a dying boy and have to keep it a secret from his family? As a teenager that kind of memory will stick with you and I imagine those organising the boys wish wanted to minimise that psychological grey area for the girl and get someone who has access to occupational mental health support through networks and hubs.
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.
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.
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 @[email protected]: “if you were face-to-face with the kid in November 2001, how would you explain the refusal?“