How do you figure the part in bold? Or are you using “literally” to mean “figurately”, which is kind of crazy in this discussion?
Just because he’s her husband and presumably controls the purse strings, doesn’t make him qualified to say whether she’s mentally competent to consent to sex. That would be best left up to a medical professional. And obviously he has a vested interest in deeming her competent because he’s the one who wants to have sex with her. This makes him too biased to be the authority on this subject.
A father can’t tell the State that his 10 year-old daughter is capable of consenting to sex, either. Who pays for what is immaterial.
It’s in a special category because we as a society consider sex special. Sex comes with consequences that other activities don’t, and penetrative sex isn’t just like a kiss on the cheek. That shit can hurt if your mind and body aren’t into it. And everyone is different in this regard. Since rules have to apply to a group, making allowances for some cases but not others complicates matters infinitely. A nursing home has to draw a line somewhere.
If the husband was so certain the nursing home’s judgement about his wife was wrong, the best course of action would have been to get that decision appealed before pursuing sex with her. Sure, the family doc’s opinion that she was incompetent may have been based on a misapplied test, but that doesn’t then mean that she was fit to have sex.
I would say that the institution makes the decision because 1) they assume some level of liability for her well-being generally, and 2) they do not stand to gain from this decision.
You bring up the issue of a guardianship, and it is a good one; however, in cases of guardians, trustees, executors, etc., when they stand to benefit materially from their decisions regarding those for whom they act, those actions are under extra scrutiny. If I want to have sex with my wife, why would I not state that I believe she can meaningfully consent, regardless of the facts?
Also, while people are uncomfortable in this case because of the marital relationship, and frankly, I don’t know how I would feel if it were my own wife and I in this case, but the idea that, regardless of dementia, since he was her husband and there was implied consent is deeply troubling to me. Sexual consent is an ongoing action- you can revoke it at any time. Does this blanket consent extend to any sexual act he might want to perform with her? Who makes that call? Again, I am more comfortable with either 1) a medical professional making a diagnosis in this specific case or 2) a nursing home having a ‘no sex’ policy for residents, than the husband being the one to make the decision, since there is a clear conflict of interest here.
A person with power of attorney can decide to let somebody die, or use extraordinary measures to keep them alive.
Literally.
You figure he’s trying to make money out of having sex with his wife?
When you marry somebody, you’re de facto making them your potential guardian, in that you’re making them your next of kin. If you don’t want someone making decisions for you when you can’t, don’t marry them. She placed trust in him by becoming his wife. She placed trust in his ability to know when she wants sex, and not abuse that power.
I have a hard time recognizing an orgasm as a material benefit. Compare that to a decision by a spouse to let their spouse die, and immediately everything becomes the survivor’s sole property. Nobody bats an eye.
And no, one doesn’t need to revisit the laws of marital rape. A person who is able to take care of themselves doesn’t have their wishes placed in the hands of their next-of-kin. But if one does have their decision-making abilities placed in the hands of a guardian, then yes, one is trusting them to make the best decisions for one in regards to everything. If you don’t want your spouse to make their best judgment about whether you want sex when you have dementia, put it in writing.
I don’t think you’re thinking about the implications of this logic.
When most women marry their husbands, they aren’t signing up to be his sex dispenser through sickness and in health. They are saying they will love and cherish their partner though sickness and health.
And the same with husbands not signing up to be sex dispensers to their wives.
And I agree with that. I think I addressed that in my previous post, where someone who does not need a guardian is not ceding any decision making. But someone who is not legally competent is ceding just about everything to their next of kin (by default, assuming nothing in writing), so why not this one? I would trust my spouse to know pretty well when I wanted sex, and to not force themselves on me. Then again, I am a hetero man, and I acknowledge even I’m somewhat sexist about the situation. It’s slightly different.
Obviously, in this case, the husband has ceded the care of his wife to this facility, so there are substantial limits on what he can do. Presumably he can’t give her hard liquor to drink, throw away her medications, or put her on the back of a motorcycle without there being adverse consequences. I have no reason to think sex is the only thing he isn’t allowed to do with her.
Being someone’s guardian doesn’t mean you own them. As mentioned before, parents are the guardian of their kids but that doesn’t mean their wishes trump that of the State.
If I’m so mentally incompetent that my husband has to become my guardian, you betcha there should be limits to what he can and can’t do. Otherwise there would be no legal way of stop him from abusing me.
As Whack-a-Mole’s posts illustrate, residents having sex is icky. Secretions are nothing too much for any caregiver to deal with, but it is much easier to ignore and deny sexuality than to have to deal with the reality that there are adults who continue to want to have sex. And once family gets involved? The easy out is to claim lack of ability to decide. Happens in many places with typical families. Especially though as it turns out, with this family.
Linda Dunshee, the daughter, just happens to be the executive director of Link Associates, a fairly large Des Moines organization that provides support services for intellectually disabled individuals which no doubt interfaces with nursing homes and those who need them. They are pretty big in the area. The other daughter, Suzan Brunes, is a hospital administrator who has been both CEO of a local hospital and Director of Nursing at the regional medical center. Also someone who could break (or make) the future for a small nursing home. Just doing what they said to do and running over a milquetoast loving husband is much to gain. It would take a family doctor and nursing staff with real spine to stand up to that combination.
Linda Dunshee and Suzan Brunes chose to place their mother in a small nursing home (50 residents) with no specific dementia expertise. There are multiple other area facilities with dedicated focus to dementia care, for example Arden Courts. But no question they would not have been able to ride roughshod there so well.
There are in fact standards of care for deciding ability to consent with dementia. Dementia experts know what they are. The family doctor who signed what the daughters shoved in front of him did not know them or chose to ignore them. He and the facility seem to have been chosen partly with that in mind.
True that the daughters somehow … wonder how … convinced the home that they had the power to place their mother in the home over her husband’s objections without any guardianship in place, moving her out of her home and into the facility when he was not home. And the husband finally deferred to the daughters as “boss.” Once in the facility the daughters managed to get one of themselves appointed as guardian because of “certain issues” between the daughters and Mr. Rayhons and allegations that he was not following all of the institution’s rules, some of which seemed to be specifically targeted at limiting his access to her, not with her best interests in mind.
Your list of things that he cannot do are all things that are clearly against her best interest. Is allowing her to have sex with her husband, which she expresses she desires, who she seems to recognize and enjoy being with, in that category? If so why? All evidence supports that continuation of desired consensual sexual intimacy improves the quality of life for those with dementia. It is not throwing away her medicine.
Because, as I stated before, the nursing home has to draw the line somewhere. Some dementia patients possess enough soundness of mind to consent to sex, and some absolutely don’t. Do you disagree with this? Without being able to evaluate the patient ourselves (never mind have the qualifications to make this determination), none of us can say this nursing home was wrong in their decision. It is not clear to me that she was always capable of recognizing and enjoying him either. What makes you so certain of this?
It sounds like what you really have a problem with is that the daughters decided to put their mother in this facility, over her husband’s wishes. And it could very well be the case that they’ve acted unethically or selfishly by doing this, but I really don’t feel like I have enough info to judge one way or the other. Regardless, the solution to this potential injustice is not to act in contravention with the facility’s rules simply because you really, really want to get laid and you really, really think she wants to get laid too. It’s to take it up with the authorities and get the sex ban changed. Because if you’re wrong, then guess what? Rape.
To be honest, and perhaps this is coloring my opinion here, but no matter hard I try I don’t see sex with a profoundly sick woman a hill worth dying on. If the facility was trying to block the husband from visiting his wife, then I could see him giving them the finger and maybe smuggling himself in. But sex? Nah. This doesn’t mean I think he should go to jail for rape, but it does keep me from ruling out the concerns of his step-daughters.
I don’t think we have enough facts to fully judge this situation.
Please read what I have already posted and if actually interested the links as well.
Yes the line should be drawn with respect for the person’s wishes and with their best interest in mind. The line should be drawn such that those things that preserve quality of life are more likely to be allowed and those things that are likely to decrease quality of life and present risk of serious harms are less likely to be allowed
No I do not disagree that there are those who do not have the capacity to consent. What I disagree with strongly is Czarcasm’s position that any dementia, anything less “fully understanding” equals removal of the freedom to consent to continuation of a sex life. I object to the presumption that removal of that right is in the person’s “best interest” despite the fact that such presumption makes life easier and more comfortable for the staff of the nursing home (who may find the very idea of these people having sex to be sickening). What I can state is that there are actual standards used by experts who care for dementia patients and that what has been presented in multiple media reports is that those standards were not followed.
The nursing staff is on record as stating that Donna Rayhons recognized her husband and was always happy to see him including the morning after the alleged forbidden sexual encounter. Maybe they are lying but we have no reason to think that.
My abstract concern is the casual nature that the freedom to continue to have sexual intimacy, something that is widely understood by dementia experts to benefit to quality of life perhaps even more at that point than at other points of life, is removed from those with dementia, seemingly because it is easier to do so than to deal with elder adult sexuality. I have a problem with the presumption that sex with the person you love and who wants to have sex with you at that point is not something worth fighting for. It is prejudging what people should care about and how much according to, sorry, ignorant stereotypes.
As I’ve read about this particular case my specific concern is about how the daughters apparently abused their powerful positions within the healthcare community to impose their will upon their mother and her husband. The facility had no policy regarding sexuality … they just created an environment in which sexuality was not able to be acted upon. The “rule” against sex was apparently one created specifically at the request of the daughters specifically to apply to this case alone, as part of an overall effort limit the husband’s contact with their mother. It was not based on any accepted standard assessment procedure or standard policy of the home.
This is a reasonable argument to make and hopefully it will be brought out in court.
That said, the husband wasn’t in the position to say their determination was wrong and then act on that belief. This is essentially the crux of the case. One can feel the guy (and his wife) potentially got a bum deal, while still feeling that he was wrong to do what he did. This is my position.
The same nursing staff also told him that she wasn’t capable of consent. I’m not seeing how it’s logical to assign value to one of these opinions while completely disregarding the other, especially without knowing more about this patient and the standards that apply to competence.