My point here is that your ire should be directed at the state prosecutor who made the decision to bring the charges.
I’m disappointed that the trial reports aren’t giving us a better idea of exactly what Mrs. Rayhons’ level of functioning was. Everyone here agrees that there is some level of functioning such that an Alzheimer’s patient would be able to consent to sex, and (I think) everyone here agrees that there is some level of functioning that is so low that sex is no longer a possibility for the person. So then we’re left reading tea leaves from the press accounts to try to figure out where in her decline Mrs. Rayhons was.
She was always glad to see her husband, according to the testimony. She entered the facility having forgotten how to use silverware and how to dress herself, and thinking that a toilet was where to wash her hands, and after that time suffered a “severe cognitive decline.” But where does that put her? I’m not able to get a clear mental picture of what she was like.
I have a serious problem with people who are not qualified to make decisions about “what is best”, making decisions for “what is best” based on:
- their convenience - if someone is sad after they go on a car ride with their loved ones and are returned to a nursing home, yeah, that is inconvenient
- their idea of “what is right” - their sympathy for my loved one, be they elderly or a child, override my decision as a person with POA or a parent
A judge determines a person’s level of competence. What makes the lives of the nursing home personnel easier when conducting their job is NOT my concern.
Agreed @CF. But isn’t that where the doctor who treated her comes in? Supposedly he would be a somewhat neutral party in that he would not be involved in any political or emotional battles that might b occurring within the extended family. So if he made a determination should that be respected or disregarded?
This is a serious misunderstanding of the situation of the person with severe Alzheimers. It’s not that after returning from the funeral of the family friend at an unfamiliar place, Mrs. Rayhons would have been said. Rather, the whole experience would have been unpleasant, confusing and agitating. This is not about the care home’s convenience. Rather, it’s about not making an elderly sick woman suffer.
@HarvestMoon1, the entire issue, for me, is whether the doctor was right in his evaluation. How should patients be evaluated for this? Some people say that the cognitive tests he administered were not adequate to determine whether sex was appropriate for Mrs. Rayhons.
I place more weight on the opinion of the director of the facility. She saw Mrs. Rayhons “at home,” as it were, and she would have been getting reports from her employees. At my mother’s continuing care place, the director has a pretty good handle on the health of residents.
I didn’t get the impression that either the director or the doctor thought this was a close decision.
A patient w advanced Alz may not be able to consent to a loved one’s hug, or a loved one’s sitting by the bedside for hours, or a nurse’s injection of a medication or an orderly’s changing of the bedpan or a doctor’s examination. But it doesn’t make those things assault.
My mother’s doctor is not affiliated with her memory care unit, but this particular physician has a lot of experience with alzheimer’s patients. She cares for 7 of the 14 residents that live with my mother. I specifically chose an “unaffiliated” doctor as she is a “check” on what recommendations are coming from the facility itself.
In the Rayhons case the doctor who made the determination was the medical director of the facility. So he saw her “at home” as well. My question is did this issue originate with him or did a family member ask him to make that determination? And if so, why did they feel the need to do so?
This is all true, but doesn’t help us evaluate this situation. There are some things that would be assault-- for example, an orderly raping the patient while pretending to do an examination; some compliant patients would not object to this. If you agree that there is some level of function where sex is no longer appropriate, then having sex with a person at this level of function would also be assault. It remains for us to determine whether Mrs. Rayhons’ abilities had diminished to the level where sex with her would be assault.
The nurse’s injection of the medication, the orderly’s changing of the bedpan and the doctor’s examination are bad examples. In these medical cases, someone else can consent for the patient. But it’s a matter of discussion whether someone else can consent to sex for the patient, and in this case even if we assume that someone else can consent for the patient, the daughter, who had her mother’s power of attorney, didn’t consent.
If we decide that someone else can consent for a disabled adult, that person shouldn’t be the same person who wants to have the sex-- that’s a clear conflict of interest.
Is there a level of functioning where it’s OK for the person with Alzheimer’s to have sex with a person they had a sexual relationship with before they became incapacitated, but not OK to have sex with any other person? That seems odd to me. I can see arguments on either side.
My own opinion is that the fact that they were married is going to weigh heavily in that jury’s decision.
There’s no doubt in my mind that if a different person had had sex with her, the jury would say there’s no way she could have consented. They’d find the guy guilty in a millisecond, and we’d all agree with them. And that’s where my intuition is failing me.
Let’s say we believe that there is a level of functioning where the husband could have sex with her, but she is too impaired to begin a sexual relationship. We’ve already agreed (I think) that there is also a level of functioning where nobody, not even her husband, should have sex with her. Now we have not one, but TWO lines to draw.
I have not read the whole thread but I just want to say that I find a certain poster’s repeated use of the term “party doll” in this context to be crass, offensive and wholly inappropriate.
Those who are saying that she was not capable of consent are basically saying that she had reached the point where she was no longer ALLOWED to have sex. No matter how much pleasure or comfort it gave her. Or no matter how much an expression of love it was on the husband’s part.
I would fight hard for my right to have sex till the day I die and would want my husband to have my proxy to articulate my wishes.
Spouses have the right to declare whether the spouse would want to live or die in many situations. Why not allow them the power to articulate what the person’s wishes were as to continued physical intimacy?
I generally want the government to stay the hell out of my bedroom. I can think of no time that I would want that more than when it comes to physical intimacy issues at the end of my life. Especially with respect to a spouse.
If there was affirmative evidence of the spouse’s lack of consent, or physical harm, of course it would be a different story.
And why stop at sex? Any intentional non-consensual touching is battery, not just sex.
I just visited my grandmother yesterday who is conscious but very out of it. I have been very close to her my entire life and love her very much.
I spent my visit holding her hand, caressing her shoulders, rubbing her head like she used to like. Even kissed her several times.
She was not capable of consenting to these touches. Should I be charged with battery?
There’s a continuum of physical intimacy and I don’t think loving marital sex is somehow off on some entirely separate scale.
Thanks, @nottelling. Let me see if I can restate your position as I understand it: The healthy spouse should have the right to decide whether the impaired spouse can still have sex with the healthy spouse. If there is evidence that the spouse is either being physically abused, or did not consent, then the healthy spouse’s judgment can be overruled, but otherwise it can’t be overruled.
Could you be more specific about what would constitute “lack of consent”? Consent is exactly the crux of the matter. What is consent in this case, and how would its lack manifest itself? Does “lack of consent” means active objection in some way? How are we to interpret the actions of an impaired person who is compliant and pretty much goes along with everything as long as it’s not very physically painful? If a person with Alzheimers has sex with husband #2 in the belief that she’s having sex with husband #1, and that’s OK, why is it not OK for her to have sex with the orderly in the belief that she’s having sex with husband #1?
Well, actually, I do not think that that is for US to determine, or anyone other than the married couple, unless the person with dementia is showing distress, either emotional or physical. And all testimony states that she was always happy to see him, and that all interactions witnessed by anyone were loving and consent was clear. There is also the testimony of the third daughter.
CF, she apparently would initiate physical intimacy by using certain expressions and by fondling him. Apparently this gave her pleasure. Presumably, he might fondle her back. Do we really need to hear this man give a graphic description of their sexual practices on the stand? Is nothing sacred? Does this married couple deserve no privacy AT ALL, not even after death?
As to getting a clear picture of her state of mind and condition, I would venture to guess that it was changing very rapidly. And as we all know, with dementia patients it can change within hours on a given day.
That’s a very permissive rule. If that’s the rule, it’s OK for the healthy spouse to have sex with the spouse with dementia even when the demented spouse has absolutely no idea what’s going on. And it’s OK for the healthy spouse to have sex with the demented person who is unconscious. What in this proposed rule keeps us out of party doll territory?
Not having had a parent in this particular situation, my general feeling is that sex is a quality of life issue, and the goal is to give the elderly the best quality of life possible. If someone indicates an interest in sex, I’m not that concerned who the partner is as long as the partner isn’t abusive. It isn’t clear to me it matters whether the patient is mistaken as to the partner’s identify, if the relationship makes the patient happy. Someone should be acting in the patient’s best interest, and I don’t think there can be a universal rule as to who that individual should be. I would be completely comfortable with my husband acting in my best interest if I had dementia. I would be extremely uncomfortable with the husband of one of my sisters acting in her best interest. I might even have to get involved. With any luck, that won’t come to pass. Reading this thread, it has occurred to me family members of my generation who expect me to act in their best interest better get busy giving me medical power of attorney. I am definitely not relishing the idea of taking on more of this sort of responsibility. I already had a talk with one sis.
IF this was her level of functioning at the time of the incident, then I have no issue with what he did. But it seems to me that the doctor and the director think she was, at that time, below that level of functioning.
The fact that the two people involved are married and have a loving and intimate relationship? Why is it so important to you to make rules restricting acts within other people’s marital relationships that apparently harm no one? This woman loved her husband, he was devoted to her, and she was always happy to see him, according even to one of the busybodies who was determined to interfere in their relationship. No one said anything about her not knowing what was going on, or being unconscious. Why borrow hypothetical trouble?
You and your spouse feel differently: fine. Make your own agreement and sign legal papers to that effect to give those taking care of you a clear picture of your wishes, just like a living will. Your spouse will know that if he has sex with you after some arbitrary point of mental decline that you wish him to be prosecuted for rape, and vice versa. (I"m assuming that dementia on the part of the sexual aggressor will be considered no excuse?) I can see that you perhaps have a philosophical need to make this kind of determination. I would suggest that this is the kind of thing that people really need to decide for themselves. Kind of the way some of us are perfectly happy to be atheistic agnostics, and other people feel compelled to come to some definite theological understanding one way or the other.
I think we should err in the direction of leaving other people alone–unless one partner is distressed.