1PeaceMaker
New member
Maybe Donna would have appreciated her husband not making her the topic of several news articles either.
I think she'd gladly be in the news if it saved her husband from the vultures.
Maybe Donna would have appreciated her husband not making her the topic of several news articles either.
I think she'd gladly be in the news if it saved her husband from the vultures.
So you didn't read the story of Ham. The point you ignored is found also in Matt 7:12, in case you were wondering. I don't believe Donna would appreciate you using her mental weakness against her husband in this fashion.
You mean the type of vultures who made this story a focus point by initiating a discussion about it on a discussion board?
How in the world have I ignored that. I mean I wouldn't want to be taken advantage of if I wasn't in a lucid state.
I'm not using anything against him that he himself has not provided.
I have not called him guilty nor have I said he is innocent.
What I have said is that this is very complicated, and hinges on details we do not possess. If you see that as an attack on him, that is your problem, not mine.
Indeed. I just posted the job requirements of what is to be expected from an in-home healthcare worker.
Also, I have actually performed the job. I never left it to the grown children of the woman I worked for to perform tasks that were clearly part of MY job duties.
Those jobs can be performed by able bodied adult children. And there are services such as hospice.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? We were discussing one SPECIFIC incident, wherein, the HUSBAND was the primary caregiver, and as such was HIS responsibility to ensure that his wife was properly dressed for the day. Yes, many people can fulfill the role, but it can be a very demanding job. Perhaps the daughters knew that they could not handle such a role and thus looked for a facility to do what they could not.
They shamed the husband to gain control of their mother, pseudo-legally, then. It would be just like Ham finding Noah drunk and exposing the incident to the known world.
So are you saying that the daughters should have allowed this man to be the sole caretaker of their mother, even though he failed to perform basic and essential caretaking neccessities, just to make sure nothing interfered with their love making regardless of her mental capacity at the time?
You are really going out of your way to paint her daughters as ruthless harpies
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you have never known or taken care of someone with dementia.
Why didn't you just stick with the topic at hand? We don't have to discuss the particular case in the OP - but rather the rights of the elderly extending into their final days.I am done with this conversation. It is clear that you are not interested in an actual discussion on any of this.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you have never known or taken care of someone with dementia. I am done with this conversation.
It is clear that you are not interested in an actual discussion on any of this.
When I met 1Peacemaker, she was volunteering twenty hours a week working at a nursing home.
As for me, I worked in a hospital with geriatric patients on my hospital rounds as a medic in the military.
That's the impression you gave from they time you entered the conversation.
So are you saying that the daughters should have allowed this man to be the sole caretaker of their mother, even though he failed to perform basic and essential caretaking neccessities, just to make sure nothing interfered with their love making regardless of her mental capacity at the time?
... No means no and if a person does not posses the wherewithal to understand consent, that is an automatic no.
hold on a sec – why is the default “no”?
seems to me that if that’s the case, a married man having sex with his inebriated wife (absent any consideration of dementia) is also guilty of rape