Here’s a good infographic, about sex in nursing homes and sexual activity in general among older people:
http://www.bloomberg.com/infographics/2013-07-22/lets-talk-about-sex-in-nursing-homes.html
I think a lot will depend on the judge’s instructions to the jury.
If I were on the jury, I would not find him guilty, no matter what the judge says. At least, if the evidence we have read in these articles is all the evidence presented. But I’m not. And there are plenty of people who would feel compelled to return a guilty verdict if the judge told then to, even if doing so flew in the face of their common sense and the evidence.
I hope the jury was made aware of this fact:
[QUOTE=""]
To dementia experts, the question of consent is far from simple. Patients with Alzheimer’s, the most prevalent form of dementia, can be incoherent one moment and lucid the next. An Alzheimer’s sufferer who doesn’t recognize toast at breakfast could make a considered choice between tomato and chicken noodle soups at lunch.
[/QUOTE]
<<<
In the courtroom on Friday, wearing a suit Donna had picked out for him, Rayhons took the witness stand and repeatedly denied having intercourse with his wife on the night in question. He broke down sobbing as he described how much he loved her. “She was my queen,” he said.
<<<<
This breaks my heart.
Shame on the prosecution for putting this man thru this.
This article has some good discussion of the complexity of consent issues when it comes to Alzheimer’s patients:
“The daughters also say that at that meeting, they broached the idea of in-home care but Mr. Rayhons shot it down. She needed more care than she was getting at home, and something had to be done. It’s often the elder’s children who initiate the necessary higher level of care, as those of us who read Parents Helping Parents know. Often, it’s an unhappy but necessary transition.”
Now let’s think about this. If Mr. Rayhons was indeed an sex-crazed monster who just wanted his wife to be a “party doll” so he could have physical access to her whenever the urge struck him, wouldn’t he have wanted her at home (with perhaps a caretaker coming in for X hours a day and then leaving at night or whatever) versus in a nursing home where any one of a number of people could be wandering in and out?
We all have our prejudices we bring to this, of course. I think of my FIL, who is caring for my MIL with Alzheimer’s at home with a caretaker - which is all the help she needs at this moment. There are times where she is perfectly lucid, recognizes my husband’s voice, carries on a conversation with only minor forgetfulness. And then just the other day, when my husband asked her how the weather was in Florida, she was completely unaware that she lived in Florida. And she’ll remember my daughter’s name but not remember that my daughter has a twin brother. But at other times - yes, lucid, witty, all those things. And while my FIL is by no means a saint, the idea of interrogating him over their private physical intimacy just makes me sick to my stomach and sick to my soul.
If there were reasonable allegations of physical abuse or something to suggest that this lady would not have consented to sex with this man, then by all means bring it on. But I don’t see anything to suggest this, other than the daughters’ resentment and snarkiness.
He wanted to be able to take her on overnight visits.
^^^
He knew she was miserable at that home. She hated being away so much from him. This does not mean he wanted to just have a live blow-up doll in bed with him.
My dad wanted my mom to sleep with him while he was dying in the hospital. I dont’ think he wanted sex. He wanted the bed-partner companionship.
Keep in mind that this poor man knew his wife was dying. Why wouldn’t he want to cuddle with her. When my mom was dying we spend nearly 24/7 with her…cuddling with her, we got in bed with her (we have pics of this!), etc.
Some people can’t seem to wrap their heads around the idea that some people really love other people…and they aren’t sex-crazed abusers.
And note that this was the very day that they claim he “raped” her, and she couldn’t “consent.”
Also note that this was the first evening that she was in the room with this new roommate. I wonder if her former roommate had a devoted husband who visited her every night, even if he had to drive 4 hours to do so.
Drive four hours? Why would he need to do this? The care facility was two miles from Mr. Rayhons’ condo.
She was not. The nurse testified: “You could see that Donna had Alzheimer’s — she was not like you and I,” Dakin said. “She was just in her pleasant little world, her own little world.”
“He wanted to be able to take her on overnight visits.”
Yes, CF. That’s how normal people who love one another think about and do things.
I guarantee if my MIL requires a higher level of care one day, my FIL would be devastated by not being able to sleep in the same bed with her, and would want overnight home visits if possible. Not because he’s a sex crazed maniac looking for a party doll, but because this is the woman he’s loved and slept next to for 50+ years.
I worry about Alz in my husband as he has a strong family history (beyond just his mother). And the idea of his requiring this kind of care, not recognizing me, and not being able to sleep with him - not for sex, but that physical closeness - brings me to tears. You’re darn right I’d cuddle up in his arms even if he didn’t recognize me or thought I was Cleopatra or whatever.
This is an apocryphal story in my husband’s family - his grandfather had a heart attack, was in the hospital recuperating, and apparently a nurse walked in on him and his wife (my H’s grandmother) in intimate activity in the hospital room, and slowly backed out and closed the door. I don’t know any more detail or context since I never met the man - he passed away before I met my H. Nonetheless –
This is the kind of story that makes normal people smile, CF. Because they know that people love one another and hence they want to be physically close. They don’t default to “someone was taking advantage of someone else.”
The makeup of the jury could be really important in this case.
^^
I just hope these folks have their heads on straight!
[QUOTE=""]
You're darn right I'd cuddle up in his arms even if he didn't recognize me or thought I was Cleopatra or whatever.
[/QUOTE]
Absolutely!
Don’t put words in my mouth, Pizzagirl.You said if Rayhons wanted to have sex with his wife, he’d want her at home. I said, yes, and he tried unsuccessfully to be able to bring her home for overnight visits. This is not me saying that he shouldn’t have been able to cuddle with her; this is me saying that you were wrong when you said he didn’t want her at home at night.
The issue is not whether Rayhons should have been able to cuddle. That’s not the issue, because there is no disagreement. Everyone agrees that he should have been able to cuddle and kiss his wife. But just as one can cuddle and kiss a baby, but not have sex with the baby, so there is a point where one can cuddle and kiss an Alzheimers patient, but not have sex with them, and the issue at trial is whether Mrs. Rayhons had reached that point.
The jury has to decide whether Mr. Rayhons did have sex with his wife, and if he did, whether she was unable to consent to sex under Iowa law. That’s all. There’s nothing about cuddling and kissing.
@CardinalFang, I am fairly certain that I read that his drive to be with her at bedtime was sometimes hours when the legislature was in session.
How do you know this? How do you know what that point is? If that needs to be determined, I would argue that it, like most medical care decisions, should be made on a case by case basis. No broad legal definition would ever fit all circumstances, and such a definition would only result in more foolish and cruel prosecutions like this one.
I gather that some patients die because they can no longer eat or drink and they have an advanced directive precluding feeding tubes. I can see that that person would be beyond sexual pleasure at that point, having actually personally cared for someone in that state. (Not because of dementia.)
But Mrs. Rayhons wasn’t at that point. And the doctor’s decision was reportedly undertaken on the basis of a short term memory test. Not to mention the fact that there was no evidence of sexual intercourse on the night in question. An ejaculation by Mr. Rayhons could well have occurred as a result of “cuddling and kissing,” and that is quite probably all that the room mate heard.
But why does everybody agree with this? I haven’t researched this, buy my suspicion is that this is technically at least a tort under Iowa law. I think we agree with it because it seems obvious to us that a person who has become incapacitated would still like to be cuddled and kissed. But why is that obvious?
Here’s a thought experiment for you: A is in the process of having an elaborate tattoo inscribed on his back. He is very excited about it, and has told all his friends that it will be a masterpiece. This work requires multiple sessions at the tattoo parlor. Just before the last session, A suffers a traumatic brain injury and becomes permanently incapacitated. He is still semi-conscious and can feel pleasure and pain, but can’t make any decisions of any kind. His spouse wants to have the tattoo completed. Another relative objects on the grounds that it would cause A pain. You are the judge. What do you decide?