Dying man's wish

[McCulloch]

Hospice Helps Dying Man Lose His Virginity
22-year-old Nick Wallis, who has muscular dystrophy, had hoped to experience sex before he died. After telling staff at the Douglas House hospice in Oxford of his wish, they decided to help him, reported London's Daily Telegraph.
[...]
"I found an advert from a sex worker in a magazine for the disabled," Wallis said. "The initial contact was by email and then by phone."
It was arranged for the prostitute to visit Wallis' home while his parents went out.

"It was a decision two years in the making and I discussed it with my carers and my parents. Telling my mother and father was the hardest part, but in the end they gave me their support," Wallis told the Telegraph.

The hospice staff consulted a solicitor, clergy, and health care professionals before agreeing to assist Wallis.
[...]
"It is not our job to make moral decisions for our guests. We came to the conclusion that it was our duty of care to support Nick emotionally and to help ensure his physical safety."

Question for debate, is this morally and ethically right? Why or why not?

[Beta]

In Beta's defense, I don't see anywhere in this thread where she has "forced" her morals upon others. I mean, the topic was "do you find this ethical or not?" and she answered the question. What else was she supposed to say?

She basically said 'If you disagree with the word of God, you are in trouble'. and said if they disagree with 'THe word of GOd', they are calling God a liar.

That is what I was refering to.

You mean we are NOT in trouble if we disagree with God ???
God is truth , His Word is truth Jh.17v17, Obviously if we disagree with God and WE think we are right then we make God out to be a liar. And plenty people do by disagreeing with him. Both can't be right in disagreement.

[Beta]

Moderator Warning

So typical of someone who is in love with the sound of their fingers pressing against the keyboard.

I see why you call yourself beta, your definitely not ready for primetime.

Vladd, please refrain from making personal insults.

Note from the grammar police: you're not your.

Mr. McCulloch , please let him speak , he obviously feels very strongly and I do understand.
Beta is the nearest to my name with the exception of one letter, there is no ulterior motive behind it.

[McCulloch]

You mean we are NOT in trouble if we disagree with God ???
God is truth , His Word is truth Jh.17v17, Obviously if we disagree with God and WE think we are right then we make God out to be a liar. And plenty people do by disagreeing with him. Both can't be right in disagreement.

If there is a God, then it would be wrong to disagree with Him. However, I have not seen convincing evidence that there is a God nor have I seen convincing evidence that even if there is a God, that the Bible is God's word. Disagreeing with the Bible is not necessarily disagreeing with God. It might be disagreeing with the assertion that God authored the Bible or it might be disagreeing with the assertion that there is a God.

[Beta]

You mean we are NOT in trouble if we disagree with God ???
God is truth , His Word is truth Jh.17v17, Obviously if we disagree with God and WE think we are right then we make God out to be a liar. And plenty people do by disagreeing with him. Both can't be right in disagreement.

If there is a God, then it would be wrong to disagree with Him. However, I have not seen convincing evidence that there is a God nor have I seen convincing evidence that even if there is a God, that the Bible is God's word. Disagreeing with the Bible is not necessarily disagreeing with God. It might be disagreeing with the assertion that God authored the Bible or it might be disagreeing with the assertion that there is a God.

Point taken.
It is not my place to convince you of either view , you are as free to reject or accept as I am. We each stated our position and that's as far as we can go.

[Goat]

In Beta's defense, I don't see anywhere in this thread where she has "forced" her morals upon others. I mean, the topic was "do you find this ethical or not?" and she answered the question. What else was she supposed to say?

She basically said 'If you disagree with the word of God, you are in trouble'. and said if they disagree with 'THe word of GOd', they are calling God a liar.

That is what I was refering to.

You mean we are NOT in trouble if we disagree with God ???
God is truth , His Word is truth Jh.17v17, Obviously if we disagree with God and WE think we are right then we make God out to be a liar. And plenty people do by disagreeing with him. Both can't be right in disagreement.

There is a big difference between 'disagreeing' with god, and claiming that YOUR version of what God said is the right one.

As a matter of fact, one very strong Jewish tradition is 'Arguing with God'. Even in
the bible, the tradition is that Abraham argued with God. It is the Jewish tradition
to question to learn more deeply. This is also known as 'wrestling with God'.

[Beta]

V44 , a weak response ?
So typical coming from someone who wants to negate the Word of God.

Yes, a weak response. You condemn actions, but try to hide behind the skirt of your god. That is about as weak as it gets.

Perhaps you should read what I wrote, rather than simply see agnostic under my name and make short sighted presumptions.

I will reiterate what I said earlier......

------------------------------
If YOU think the WORD OF GOD says it is wrong, was it so much of a stretch for McCulloch to think that YOU PERSONALLY would agree with the "WORD OF GOD" ?

Especially if the WORD OF GOD is what counts.
---------------------------------------

Irony is, I didnt even discuss the logic or rationale of your bible, just commented in your poor attempt to condemn someones actions, while at the same time trying to imply the condemnation came from elsewhere.

Since you don't want to actually take a position (at least it seems that way from this viewpoint). Perhaps I should be more direct in my comments.

Do YOU beta agree with YOUR interpretation of YOUR bible that would condemn the actions this thread is about (22yr old dying man not wanting to die a virgin, and someone hooking him up).

If you agree (with your bible), then why be so mealy mouthed about admitting it? Do you just prefer to spread insults around, or is there some other reason you abstain from admitting you find their actions wrong?

If you disagree (with your bible), then why even bring what it says up?

Care to actually respond this time to the question asked? Or is just calling me a typical unbeliever, judging me as someone who "wants to negate the Word of God" and smugly typing meaningless words once again more entertaining.

So typical coming from someone who wants to negate the Word of God.

So typical of someone who is in love with the sound of their fingers pressing against the keyboard.

I see why you call yourself beta, your definitely not ready for primetime.

Oh I'll take a position and it's right alongside God , (you can be as insulting as you like it makes no difference). There was actually a reason why I quoted from God and it was for YOUR benefit - not as you had noticed. But never mind if you rather hear scripture from me at least you can get back at me whereas you can't at God.
What I am saying about Wallis is this : If he is not a christian then he should not be judged.You will find I mentioned this several times in earlier posts and if you read condemnation into that it is YOUR problem. I also said that our personal opinions don't matter, why should you want to demand one ? Are you just looking for an argument ?
People make their own decisions and since it came up for debate I stated the Bible's view on it and I agree.
Normally people who agree with God are called Believers and those who don't Unbelievers , sorry if that offends you, how else can we differentiate ? What other insults can we put right ?

[Goat]

Oh I'll take a position and it's right alongside God , (you can be as insulting as you like it makes no difference). There was actually a reason why I quoted from God and it was for YOUR benefit - not as you had noticed. But never mind if you rather hear scripture from me at least you can get back at me whereas you can't at God.
What I am saying about Wallis is this : If he is not a christian then he should not be judged.You will find I mentioned this several times in earlier posts and if you read condemnation into that it is YOUR problem. I also said that our personal opinions don't matter, why should you want to demand one ? Are you just looking for an argument ?
People make their own decisions and since it came up for debate I stated the Bible's view on it and I agree.
Normally people who agree with God are called Believers and those who don't Unbelievers , sorry if that offends you, how else can we differentiate ? What other insults can we put right ?

Normally, I call someone with your position inflexible, and I don't think what you think is 'right along God' has anything to do with God at all. I think with your viewpoint , and your 'definition' that makes you an unbeliever.

[Beta]

In Beta's defense, I don't see anywhere in this thread where she has "forced" her morals upon others. I mean, the topic was "do you find this ethical or not?" and she answered the question. What else was she supposed to say?

She basically said 'If you disagree with the word of God, you are in trouble'. and said if they disagree with 'THe word of GOd', they are calling God a liar.

That is what I was refering to.

You mean we are NOT in trouble if we disagree with God ???
God is truth , His Word is truth Jh.17v17, Obviously if we disagree with God and WE think we are right then we make God out to be a liar. And plenty people do by disagreeing with him. Both can't be right in disagreement.

There is a big difference between 'disagreeing' with god, and claiming that YOUR version of what God said is the right one.

As a matter of fact, one very strong Jewish tradition is 'Arguing with God'. Even in
the bible, the tradition is that Abraham argued with God. It is the Jewish tradition
to question to learn more deeply. This is also known as 'wrestling with God'.

I didn't know you were engaged in a jewish tradition of wrestling and arguing with God like Abraham, seeing it is nowhere mentioned in the Bible and in the OT Gen.15v6, 22v18 ,we read that Abraham believed and obeyed God which earned him all the blessings.
We should get to know God better and looking at scripture is the way foreward , not our own opinions. Let's try again.

[Beta]

To Man bear pig,
I think I should say thank you in appreciation for your defense on my behalf.
At least YOU could see I had no evil intent by stating the Bible's view on Wallis which was not so much condemming as warning against wrongdoing. Perhaps we can let it go now.

[Greatest I Am]

Interesting scenario.
Reproduction is one of our most basic and fundamental instincts.
It, like all other issues, has a good and evil side.
Men especially have a pronounced drive towards sex.
The medical profession acknowledges that lack of sex can disrupt the psych to the point where sex therapists are required. I did notice that some here call them prostitutes but I prefer sex therapist.
The drive that the patient shows is normal. It's appeasement if not allowed could disrupt to the point of creating further complication to treatment from a holistic point of view.
Therefore treatment should be allowed.
There is no sin involved.

Regards
DL.