Honoring Old Love vs Medical Tyranny

[shagster01]

So they should be allowed and encouraged to "show their love" in any old place? Park bench? Middle of the mall? Front seat of greyhound bus?

Is there no other way to "honor old love" than to have sex in the view or earshot of strangers? How much honor or love is being shown to person whose dementia is so serious she is hospitalized?

This is a great point. There is no way the other person in the room should be forced to sit there and listen to their love-making in a shared space with a simple curtain seperating them.

If 1peacemaker thinks that is ok, she is certainly a weirdo.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

This is a great point. There is no way the other person in the room should be forced to sit there and listen to their love-making in a shared space with a simple curtain seperating them.

If 1peacemaker thinks that is ok, she is certainly a weirdo.

I'm not saying that, but we are talking about a couple who didn't need to have their space invaded like that. The daughter intentionally forced them to share the room with the staff's cooperation so they could add another man to their nursing home and prevent romance, their expressly stated intention, meaning the old lady in the bed nearby was playing snitch. It was a win-win for staff and daughter, but a lose-lose for man and wife.

 

[elohiym]

Among others? He admitted they had sex, and he threw her underwear in the trash. Sorry, I don't care what the circumstances are...that ain't a good look.

He didn't admit they had sex that night and didn't throw her underwear in the trash, liar. You are one sick individual.

He changed his wife's underwear, which she probably preferred to a stranger doing. Then--don't pass out now--he (gasp) put her underwear in a clothes hamper (to be cleaned). The underwear didn't have semen on it, and why on earth would you think it should?

The rape test was negative!

 

[elohiym]

This is a great point. There is no way the other person in the room should be forced to sit there and listen to their love-making in a shared space with a simple curtain seperating them.

It was a stupid point because they didn't have sex.

There was a curtain around the woman's bed. Why?

 

[1PeaceMaker]

He didn't admit they had sex that night and didn't throw her underwear in the trash, liar. You are one sick individual.

He changed his wife's underwear, which she probably preferred to a stranger doing. Then--don't pass out now--he (gasp) put her underwear in a clothes hamper (to be cleaned). The underwear didn't have semen on it, and why on earth would you think it should?

The rape test was negative!

Yeah, I didn't take Granite to task about calling a hamper the trash. Of course he'd put her underwear where it belonged after helping her change.

 

[shagster01]

It was a stupid point because they didn't have sex.

How do you know?

 

[1PeaceMaker]

It was a stupid point because they didn't have sex.

I was thinking the same thing. If they had actually done so, though, it was absolutely crazy that they were even put in that position. Supposing they did "do it" - however - they did would have been doing so quietly in the only place they possibly could have used. They had the right to have private sex if that's what they wanted. But staff detained her, forcing her to live out her life always there, according to the controlling daughter's wishes.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

How do you know?

Rape kit. (see Granite's story below)

 

[elohiym]

How do you know?

You didn't read the article Granite posted. :sigh:

Read this article before you address me, please: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...slator-charged-raping-wife-dementia/20305991/

 

[shagster01]

Rape kit.

Who performed the rape kit testing?

.... dun dun dun... the evil medical empire!

So you'll trust them on that but not on a diagnosis of dementia?

 

[elohiym]

Who performed the rape kit testing?

.... dun dun dun... the evil medical empire!

So you'll trust them on that but not on a diagnosis of dementia?

You're making a fool of yourself. Please read the article before you say any more incredibly stupid things. Thanks in advance. :cheers:

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Who performed the rape kit testing?

.... dun dun dun... the evil medical empire!

So you'll trust them on that but not on a diagnosis of dementia?

The pretense under which she had her rights stripped were not overseen by the ....dun dun dun .... specialists who would have known the most about her ability to consent.

 

[elohiym]

The pretense under which she had her rights stripped were not overseen by the ....dun dun dun .... specialists who would have known the most about her ability.

It doesn't appear they care about facts. They will reap what they sow.

 

[Rusha]

She was stepped on medically by the staff of the nursing home where she was kidnapped to by her daughter. So yes, it did happen.

Oh, this time it's kidnapped rather than assaulted. Please show the police report and subsequent arrests of her "kidnappers". :think:

Where is the Alz. specialist saying she couldn't consent? Lack of short term memory does not = lack of consent.

Where are YOUR credentials?

Sure it did. She was objectified by an arbitrary test given her by a doctor who was no specialist.

Hysteria.

Whatever.. As though you haven't been full of pure emotion on this thread.

Not hardly. I have no reason to be. I agree that this husband shouldn't have been manhandling his sick wife.

She wasn't "HOSPITALIZED" and she wasn't raped, either.

That's yet to be established, isn't it?

She was kidnapped out of her home and marital bed into a home without her consent, though. When other options existed to serve her better without agitating her unduly.

Uh huh. Where is the article about this *kidnapping*? Police report?

Also, taking a page out of your book ... how do you know it was without her consent? Why is consent only important to you if it agrees with your agenda towards healthcare professionals? Why do you claim to know her consent was given during the incident at the healthcare facility?

 

[elohiym]

The state crime lab completed Donna Rayhons' rape test Nov. 20. It took six months to process because of a backlog at the lab. The exam showed no evidence of seminal fluid or DNA other than hers on swabs of her mouth and vagina. A stain in her underwear "indicated the presence of seminal fluid; however, no spermatozoa were microscopically identified," the two-page lab report said.

FACT: She didn't have sexual intercourse with her husband that night. Ergo, there was no rape!

His attorney, Joel Yunek of Mason City, said in a court filing that what Henry Rayhons told agent Reger is "vague" unless "snippets of the interview are selectively taken out of context." In a June 5 interview with a different state investigator, Schoneman revised her earlier words. She said she heard whispering, not sexual noises, although she worried for Donna Rayhons' safety.

FACT: The "witness" revised her statement. Therefore, the affidavit that led to the arrest contained false and misleading information.

 

[elohiym]

How her underwear "indicated the presence of seminal fluid" yet did not have evidence of sperm could be due to a "false positive" on the test the crime labs uses. One test they use, and I think they used it here, is the p30 test. It tests for prostate specific antigen. That can be positive from female urine (also cancer and other things). For that reason, the p30 is considered to be a presumptive test.

 

[Rusha]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...om-an-astonishing-case-of-sex-and-alzheimers/

From the article:

In May, Dunshee and Donna’s other daughter, Suzan Brunes, met with Concord staff and drew up a care plan for Donna, according to a state affidavit. At the meeting, the women and doctors concluded that Donna was no longer able to consent to sex, a fact Rayhons was informed of.

But a week later, on May 23, surveillance video showed Rayhons spending about 30 minutes in his wife’s room. When he left, he was holding her underwear, which he dropped into a laundry bag in the hallway.

Donna’s roommate told nursing home staff that Rayhons had come into the room and closed a privacy curtain around his wife’s bed. She then heard noises indicating that Rayhons was having sex with Donna, the affidavit said.

Of course it's perfectly normal for a visitor to leave a patient's room with her underwear ...

 

[1PeaceMaker]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...om-an-astonishing-case-of-sex-and-alzheimers/

From the article:

In May, Dunshee and Donna’s other daughter, Suzan Brunes, met with Concord staff and drew up a care plan for Donna, according to a state affidavit. At the meeting, the women and doctors concluded that Donna was no longer able to consent to sex, a fact Rayhons was informed of.

But a week later, on May 23, surveillance video showed Rayhons spending about 30 minutes in his wife’s room. When he left, he was holding her underwear, which he dropped into a laundry bag in the hallway.

Donna’s roommate told nursing home staff that Rayhons had come into the room and closed a privacy curtain around his wife’s bed. She then heard noises indicating that Rayhons was having sex with Donna, the affidavit said.

Of course it's perfectly normal for a visitor to leave a patient's room with her underwear ...

Yes, it is. Especially if the visitor is a husband and he was trying to help her get ready for bed.

What do you think your [COLOR] is helping you prove?

Does it prove that the staff were experts in Alzheimer's? If not, then what is your point, exactly?

 

[1PeaceMaker]

It doesn't appear they care about facts. They will reap what they sow.

I have to agree...

 

[elohiym]

Of course it's perfectly normal for a visitor to leave a patient's room with her underwear ...

Her husband changed her dirty underwear and put it in a laundry basket. Nobody heard sounds of sex. The rape test was negative; she hadn't had sex that night. Keep ignoring the facts, heartless.