The whole situation is difficult, confusing and sad. I get the impression from the article BunsenBurner linked that, apart from the rape accusations, Rayhons wasn’t fully acknowledging how affected his wife was by dementia.
And the daughters sound like they were undervaluing their mother’s autonomy.
I hope we can get a better understanding, and a better consensus, on sexual expression among people with dementia, because there are going to be more and more of them.
Alzheimer’s sucks.
This is sad. I would like to know how were the daughters able to move their mom to a facility without his consent? Did they have POA?
<<<
If he weren’t a politician and if the daughters did not hate him so much…, this would not reach the courthouse.
[/QUOTE]
I agree.
Why do the DDs hate him so much? Is it a political thing? Do they think that they lost out on inheritance when mom remarried?
Were they annoyed that their mom was sexual in her elderly years and so they assumed that “he” must have been using her?
Is it possible that they were annoyed that their mom was happier with H2 than she was with H1? (just wondering)
24 I don’t think there is an established legal or medical guideline.
Dementia is tricky - the patient can have lucid moments.
Although kind of rudely put, this isn’t such an easy question to answer. I would put it this way: what is the default assumption in the situation in which a spouse becomes incapacitated: that there is blanket consent for future sexual activity, or that there is no longer any consent for any sexual activity? Should there be a general assumption applied by the law, and if so, what should it be? If there is a blanket assumption, can the parties issue directives that contradict that assumption?
I will point out (perhaps also somewhat rudely) that reportedly spouses will sometimes consent to sexual activity even if they are not interested, are not in the mood, aren’t feeling all that great, etc. It is not too far-fetched that a person might feel that if they became incapacitated, they would like their spouse to continue to get whatever solace he or she could from intimacy. Should a person be allowed to take that position?
I find it very telling that only 2 of the 3 daughters is involved “rape” case. Also from a previous article I don’t think she had much money before she married Rayons. It said she survived after her husband died with money she made from bee keeping. So the two daughters may have been jealous about Rayons being able to support her. If she had truly been victimized she would have been upset/crying and had some sort of physical injury. What the two daughters have done is ruined their mom’s legacy. She will now always be known for the trial instead what she did with the rest of her life.
^I have no idea as to the answer to that question. It bothers me a lot someone may be in a position where they no longer have the ability to withdraw consent. Women might think they’d always be okay with unlimited consent but, post-menopause, might find relations too physically uncomfortable or painful at some point. There could be valid reasons to change one’s mind which were unforeseeable at the time consent was granted for all time.
This article has made me think about friends and relatives with elderly parents in nursing homes or assisted living. It surprised me some daughters have been almost gleeful about removing their mothers from situations where they were sexually active. One woman, explaining to me a transfer from a situation where her mother had been discovered in flagrante, said “There is no way I’m letting her be a slut. She was never like this.”
Since most of us don’t share our sex lives with our children, I am not sure she knows what her mother’s needs and desires were. I’ve been hanging out with some very elderly women the last few years. They are all extremely interested in sex (although they don’t want the responsibility of a husband) and most are “courting.”
I have no idea who should make decisions for those incapacitated. It is so dependent on individual circumstances.
But we allow people to make all sorts of advance directives that they can’t withdraw once they become incapacitated, including things like having their organs donated, or whether they will be given various types of medical intervention. How different is this?
I tried to give one example how it is different, at least in my mind.
Not exactly the same but another example how women change their minds based on unforeseen circumstances: I might think I don’t want drugs during childbirth. But I can’t know in advance the reality of my delivery experience. I may change my mind. No one will tell me I don’t have that option. Unless, of course, the delivery is too far along.
But you might change your mind about whether heroic efforts should be taken to preserve your life–even if you couldn’t convey your change of position on that. This is an inevitable issue with any advance directive.
I think the issue is not so easy either.
The law for temporary incapacitation of a spouse is clear. I believe marital rape is a crime in all 50 states. Suppose Chris has sex with spouse Lee while Lee is unconscious. Lee returns to consciousness, finds out, and accuses Chris of rape. Chris acknowledges the sex, but says that being married to Lee means Chris is entitled to have sex with unconscious Lee. Chris has just admitted to the crime of rape.
But in another thread you bring up a good point, Hunt. What if, let’s say, Lee is in the hospital, still unconscious after surgery, and a hospital employee observes Chris having sex with Lee. Lee wakes up, the employee tells Lee about the sex, and Lee says, oh well. Would the justice system take a rape report from the employee? What if Lee never wakes up from surgery and the employee reports the alleged rape?
The Hebrew Home, the nursing home that encourages sexual activity among its residents, nevertheless requires that the parties indicate consent in some way. If a sexual relationship is abusive, because one of the people does not seem to be welcoming the sexual contact, the people will be separated.
I never took logic or debate. Is there any difference in that the discomfort/distress over not being able to change one’s mind about heroic measures will necessarily be short-lived?
I like CF’s description of the Hebrew Home.
It seems like a big jump from “A person could make an advance directive saying that they are OK with sex with their spouse even if they are incapacitated by Alzheimers” to “A person who didn’t make any advance directive is OK with sex with their spouse in all cases when incapacitated by Alzheimers.”
Or a person who didn’t make an advanced directive isn’t allowed to have sex with spouse.
Why is no sex the default assumption? This is a serious question.
I guess I’d say that as long as the Alzheimers patient can indicate consent, and does indicate consent, it’s fine-- wordless consent is consent. Bit of they are so far gone into Alzheimers that they are a party doll, then it’s not fine. And if I were the nursing home staff, I’d definitely intervene in what I thought was an abusive sexual relationship between two patients; Alzheimers patients can become sexually aggressive, and that could become an issue.
To supplement what @mom2collegekids states in post #31, not only can Alzheimers victims go downhill quickly,they can have lucid moments right up to the end. I lost a parent to Alzheimers, and can tell you from experience that people can act like their old selves on the day they die. There can be fleeting, and sometimes not so fleeting, moments, when your loved one acts completely normal. Not only that, but Alzhiemers victims often are most clear-minded in a familiar environment, like their own homes, and with familiar people, such as a spouse. That woman’s daughters have no idea how their mother behaved in her home with her husband. The real crime is what is happening to this poor grieving man.
But I don’t agree that this woman would have necessarily been upset/crying, as mentioned above, if she had been truly victimized. Alzheimers victims can go from cheerful to crying and back to cheerful in an instant and for no apparent reason. Not sure much of anything can be determined with any level of certainty based on the behavior of an Alzheimers victim. Those of us who have lived it could tell stories no one else would ever believe.
Why? Again, a serious question.
Another way of putting this: would the average person prefer that his or her spouse be permitted to continue sexual intimacy even after he/she is incapacitated, or would the average person prefer that sexual intimacy stop in such a situation? I don’t know the answer to that question, and it really ought to inform what the default assumption is.
I saw a TV news report on this case and my impression was that it was Donna’s roommate that let the daughters know what was going on. Apparently Donna shared a room in this facility. When the stepfather would visit he would draw the curtain around the bed and have sex with his wife. The roommate based this statement on what she heard. I am supposing the video of him depositing her underwear in the laundry bin was used to corroborate this activity.
My supposition is that this enraged the daughters. But whether the lack of dignity that this man chose to expose his wife to rises to the level of rape, I am not sure.
I don’t know what the average person would prefer. It might be different for men than for women. It might depend on the degree of incapacitation: the average person might be fine with sexual intimacy if they had Alzheimers but could still respond, but not fine if they were in a coma.