In the first place, she was covered by a coat. In the second place, you have no idea at what point she dressed herself, or whether she removed clothing after that or what, or whether he had any idea what she was wearing. She may have dressed herself normally the day before. No one knows.
They had a loving relationship that evidently included a mutually satisfying sex life. He visited her every day to pra with her and put her to bed, even when it required hours of driving. She knew who he was and knew that her D was trying to separate them the very morning that he is accused of having some kind of contact, and was very unhappy about that. There is no evidence of any penetration or any distress on her part whatsoever.
This is very,very far from a person “having sex” with a “comatose” spouse, something that NO ONE here has endorsed. You lost. The elderly, devoted spouse won’t be jailed. I think you need to calm down.
That was the day that her daughter picked her up at the State Capitol. She was half dressed, and at lunch she didn’t remember what silverware was, and thought the unflushed toilet bowl was for washing hands. The State Capitol is two hours from her home. She didn’t just show up. Her husband brought her.
(Edited for clarity, so @Consolation would realize I was responding to TV4caster, who apparently was not familiar with the details.)
I’m fully aware of that, CF, I can and do read. You are not the only one who is familiar with the details. I would point out to you that if she came out to the car wearing a coat and apparently dressed, he would not necessarily know what she had on underneath. Her disease was progressing rapidly, and it tends to be erratic anyway.
@Consolation, If you can and do read, then next time you should utilize that excellent skill set to read the previous messages in the thread. Check #339 to see what I was responding to. It wasn’t you.
I’m deeply sorry to disappoint you, Consolation, but I wanted a conversation and more attention on this subject. That happened. I won. You wanted him to be acquitted, so you also won.
I just reread the article and it does not say that Rayhons took Donna to work that day. It only says that the other daughter arranged to meet her. It doesn’t say she was picking her up. You can assume that he took her, but you know what they say about assuming. Maybe the other daughter took her. Maybe she drove herself. Maybe she took the bus.
Anyway, if he did take her, there is no way of knowing if he had anything to do with what she was wearing when her daughter met her. I know several women who have done exactly what is described (I think that was a scene in a movie). I sure wouldn’t use that as an example of how he was supposedly abusing her.
The comment about the her undressed state was a flippant one, and I shouldn’t have said it. I haven’t seen a shred of evidence that Mr. Rayhons was abusing his wife (putting aside any issues about sex). He was taking care of a woman with dementia, and that’s a difficult task.
Nobody won in this case. The prosecutor is the biggest loser, because he or she made a truly stupid decision to pursue this case, and the result was (in my opinion) jury nullification. Jury nullification is corrosive to respect for the law. Do you think Mr. Rayhons feels like a winner after this? Who’s going to pay his defense lawyer? Also, he’s going to have to live with the guilt of lying under oath, which he almost certainly did (not that I particularly blame him under the circumstances).
Note: the fact that the jury took 13 hours is part of what makes me think this was jury nullification. It probably took that long for them to convince one or two holdouts to ignore the law and the facts and do what seemed right to them.
One more note: on the tattoo example, who gets to decide whether completing the tattoo would be of value to the tattooed person after he becomes incapacitated? What if he writes a directive that says, “This tattoo is my masterpiece and my legacy. I want it completed, no matter what, even if I’m incapacitated and it causes me great pain. It’s that important to me.”
@Hunt I tend to agree with you regarding jury nullification in this case. And if that’s what happened, I’m glad they did it. I’m sorry they were forced to do it.
This debacle does make clear that if people outside a marriage–and law enforcement in particular-- are going to take it upon themselves to make these decisions, that much better laws and standards need to be in place. And when I say “better” I don’t mean more authoritarian. Sometimes the government needs to back off, and getting out of people’s bedrooms is generally a good thing.
I would hope that this case sets a precedent that effectively limits the use of the laws on the books. I see this kind of thing as similar to the ways in which RICO is applied way, way beyond the original intent, and the way that forfeiture laws are applied to strip innocent parties of their assets.
There are always trade-offs. This is one I’d make: I would accept the extremely remote risk that a person somewhere would have sex with a comatose spouse–and I mean actually comatose and I mean spouse, not the orderly–and get away with it in order to avoid dragging people like Henry Rayhons into the legal system.
Intercourse with a comatose person is distasteful in the extreme, but is the comatose person actually being physically or emotionally harmed? Can they even feel it? Would a comatose person be harmed if a spouse caressed their body, even in a way that gave the spouse sexual pleasure? Who is being harmed? This is to some degree like laws banning gay sex. Your person “ick factor” shouldn’t get to intervene in other people’s bedrooms.
Is there a driving need for the state to intervene in such private relationships that overcomes issues of privacy and applies limits to personal liberty? I think that that is the question that needs to be asked first.
This reminds me of the discussion about the brain dead child, being kept “alive” on machines. I thought if she had no brain function, the feelings of the family became the priority (though I don’t believe society is obligated to financially support those feelings)
However, I’m not so sure about comatose patients. There is that book by the stroke survivor, who describes knowing everything going on but being unable to communicate.
I am also not completely willing to say the dead have no feelings or rights. But I do think the best interests of the living are more important than the best interests of the dead.
So I’m the tattoo artist, looking at Present A in front of me. Present A does not want this tattoo. Present A will get no benefit from this tattoo, now or ever. Present A will suffer pain, in the service of nothing, as far as Present A is concerned.
Past A said that he wanted Present A to get the tattoo in this situation. But why would I listen to to Past A? He’s dead and gone. He should not be able to torture Present A.
I wouldn’t do the waxing, either, not after the person was past any stage of moments of lucidity where they appreciated their good grooming. Waxing hurts. I’d use better makeup, rather than go through weekly (or whatever) sessions of torturing my sister while she cried and fought me.
@CardinalFang, I’d make the same choice if I were the tattoo artist, no matter what the choice of the person. Those trying to carry through on the advanced directive would have to find someone else to do it. (I admit that my view is colored by the fact that I detest tattoos in the first place. )
Regarding waxing, I can see maybe an upper lip. That’s it. But again, that is colored by my personal view of depilatory practices. I can understand a woman not wanting to visualize herself with unsightly big, dark hairs sprouting on her face. But a bikini wax or one of the more extreme versions in an incapacitated person? No way.
I think how one views these things in terms of their benefit to an incapacitated person is inevitably colored by how one views the benefit of them while the person is alive.
BTW, my H had to take our last golden to the oncologist on New Year’s Eve, when after a battle with cancer she could no longer stand. I couldn’t be there, because I was in another state helping my sib, who had had surgery. I agreed with them via phone that it was time. I was disturbed, when I saw a picture of her after she was put to sleep, that he hadn’t brushed her beforehand and she looked very disheveled. When I was home, I combed or brushed her every few days, even when she was sick. She enjoyed it. Of course it didn’t make any difference to her that she died that way, but it bothered me. But she was loved by him and by her oncologist and the staff, which was the most important thing.
How do you know Present A doesn’t want the tattoo? Did they communicate that to you? If they did then they are capable of making choices and they are capable of giving consent. In the hypos that we have been talking about it is assumed that Present A is unable to make an informed decision. In that case you have no way of knowing that “present A does not want this tattoo”.
Now, let’s say Present A shows pain as the procedure starts. You can’t use that as an excuse not to complete the tattoo because who cares if it hurts. It obviously hurt Past A as well and yet they chose to endure the pain. The only way I would even consider the pain aspect of things is if Present A had some condition that exacerbated pain compared to Past A.
I would have absolutely no qualms about this tattoo, or almost any other predetermined procedure. I see absolutely no difference logically from an advanced medical directive, etc. My mom and I have this conversation all the time concerning my dad. What he wants post-stroke differs from what he wanted pre-stroke. We tend to make decisions based more on the pre-stroke version.
)