Honoring Old Love vs Medical Tyranny

[elohiym]

They ruled her unable to give informed consent.

If you are clashing with a home over your wife's care, let's see how you feel when they use medical tyranny to punish you for not going along.

"The clashes over her care built until a meeting in May during which Henry Rayhons was informed of his wife's inability to consent."

Sounds like retribution.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

PeaceMaker: You have got serious, serious issues.

Yes, because I wouldn't want ageists annulling my marriage when one of us becomes cognitively impaired. I want the world to know I do not consent to strangers terminating my romance with my husband.

I can still orally remove consent myself. That's the condition I place, and the only one.

The last thing I need is jealous social workers and medical staff interfering. I feel for those who's kids unduly influence medical staff to break up their marriages, just because they can kick them when they are down.

 

[elohiym]

From the comment section in the article:

I lost my Grandmother to Alzheimers and it was the most heart wrenching thing that we ever had to watch. for the 6 years that she lived with us, she went through periods of lucidity, periods of living 60 years ago and not recognizing any of us or calling me my Mom's name but I can tell you that there were times that she knew exactly what was going on and what she wanted. So for this family to put her husband through this is a travesty in itself since he already lost his wife and now he has to defend how much he loved her in a public setting. There isn't anyone that can testify that she said "NO" or if she actually wanted him to be with her, so this is really more about some doctors on one side coming out and testifying that she couldn't possibly have consented while the defense will parade a slew of doctors that will say you can't be sure if she was in her right mind that night. LEAVE THEM ALONE for goodness sake, she is gone and better off now. LET THIS WOMAN finally rest...... I do hate that a court gave the daughter guardianship over her husband that takes away from the sanctity of marriage yet again. She could have written a living will placing her children in charge had she chosen to do so..​

 

[Granite]

If you are clashing with a home over your wife's care, let's see how you feel when they use medical tyranny to punish you for not going along.

"Medical tyranny." Boy but you guys are rich.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...slator-charged-raping-wife-dementia/20305991/

If anyone's interested in the facts, here ya go. Something that seems really apparent (towards the end of the article) is that the husband knew he'd done wrong and was loathe to admit it. Seriously: He didn't remember being in her room? Didn't remember having sex with her? Sounds like a politician trapped in a lie who's finally unable to get out of it.

 

[Granite]

Yes, because I wouldn't want ageists annulling my marriage when one of us becomes cognitively impaired. I want the world to know I do not consent to strangers terminating my romance with my husband.

I can still orally remove consent myself. That's the condition I place, and the only one.

The last thing I need is jealous social workers and medical staff interfering. I feel for those who's kids unduly influence medical staff to break up their marriages, just because they can kick them when they are down.

"Ageists"? Since when in the world did you get all PC?

Read the article I posted. This guy's not being persecuted and he's no saint.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

"I fully believe if the girls had let me take her home, Donna would still be with us," he said. "They locked me out, and I didn't see her, and I didn't do nothing wrong."

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...slator-charged-raping-wife-dementia/20305991/

Man, that is so sad. As if losing his wife slowly wasn't bad enough. They really loved each other. That was an amazing and revealing article.

I think the State should stop breaking new ground.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

"Ageists"? Since when in the world did you get all PC?

Read the article I posted. This guy's not being persecuted and he's no saint.

I just finished it. This whole mess was instigated and aggravated by the daughters. Her deterioration was quite rapid and uneven.

And the old lady who told on them didn't hear or see any evidence of abuse. She shouldn't even have had to share that room with the lonely tattler. That was done to prevent them from being together. The hospital found no evidence of tearing or bruising, either. Not even any proof that they had sex then.

It's just wrong to mess with them.

 

[Rusha]

Should I give you a hard time for all the expressive text manipulation, and imply it means what you previously indicated that it meant when I used it, that your point is weak? Or do you want to take that back?

Besides, what is your point? That because some guy in a nursing home paid by ageist, biased grown children who didn't like their stepdad disagreed with their love?

If the question was whether she invited him and had a was a happy participant this would be a shut case already. She obviously loved and knew him when they got together or they wouldn't have had to use a fallible medical opinion about her capacity to argue against her ability consent.

We are only discussing a consenting adult who wanted that person in her bed. She married him, too, as if we didn't have enough evidence with the way she treated him.

You don't know if she was lucid then. You'd have to prove she wasn't. And lucidity is not the only factor. You can approve of things during incapacitation that are quite invasive but which are for your good.

Them having passion obviously and provably is for her health and well being as much as surgery for a sleeping patient is.

If you argue if she was confused --- she wouldn't invite his attentions or resist his advances.

Example "Who are you? Don't touch me, you stranger!" vs "Come over here, you..." *smooch*

Seriously, if she didn't recognize that she wanted him, she would have been rejecting him, not smooching him! Her husband! LOL

PeaceMaker: You have got serious, serious issues.

 

[Rusha]

The last thing I need is jealous social workers and medical staff interfering.

:chuckle: What on earth would they have to be jealous of?

Another astounding argument. Like something I would expect to read in an issue of Tiger Beat Magazine.

 

[Rusha]

They ruled her unable to give informed consent. Whatever happened to erring on the side of caution?:nono:

Apparently his *needs* are more important than her health and well being.

 

[elohiym]

"Medical tyranny." Boy but you guys are rich.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...slator-charged-raping-wife-dementia/20305991/

If anyone's interested in the facts, here ya go. Something that seems really apparent (towards the end of the article) is that the husband knew he'd done wrong and was loathe to admit it. Seriously: He didn't remember being in her room? Didn't remember having sex with her? Sounds like a politician trapped in a lie who's finally unable to get out of it.

It's blatantly obvious the man is innocent and a victim of medical malpractice and a corrupt justice system. Either you didn't read the article or your stupidity and evil nature exceeded my expectations.

Yes, medical tyranny! Clearly.

 

[Rusha]

It's blatantly obvious the man is innocent and a victim

Of his uncontrollable libido ... which ranked much higher than his wife.

 

[Granite]

It's blatantly obvious the man is innocent and a victim of medical malpractice and a corrupt justice system. Either you didn't read the article or your stupidity and evil nature exceeded my expectations.

It's not "obvious" at all. That's the entire issue. Ease off on the hyperbole, why don'tcha.

He agreed not to engage in intercourse, broke his word, and now he's facing the consequences of his actions.

 

[elohiym]

Read the article I posted. This guy's not being persecuted and he's no saint.

Anyone who reads that article and comes to the same conclusion as you is a moron. I just can't believe you read it before you posted it because it totally proves you are wrong.

 

[Granite]

I just finished it. This whole mess was instigated and aggravated by the daughters. Her deterioration was quite rapid and uneven.

And the old lady who told on them didn't hear or see any evidence of abuse. She shouldn't even have had to share that room with the lonely tattler. That was done to prevent them from being together. The hospital found no evidence of tearing or bruising, either. Not even any proof that they had sex then.

It's just wrong to mess with them.

I see--so she deteriorated quickly (yet could somehow still could consent in your opinion), and now you seem unclear as to whether they had sex or not (seems clear they did).

 

[elohiym]

It's not "obvious" at all. That's the entire issue. Ease off on the hyperbole, why don'tcha.

He agreed not to engage in intercourse, broke his word, and now he's facing the consequences of his actions.

Shut up and read the article. You obviously only skimmed it. There was no evidence of rape! None! Get it? There is evidence of medical malpractice! Get it?

 

[Granite]

Anyone who reads that article and comes to the same conclusion as you is a moron. I just can't believe you read it before you posted it because it totally proves you are wrong.

I'm glad you and your high horse showed up today. You're more obnoxious than usual.:yawn:

 

[Rusha]

Sex and dementia.

I wonder why sex is listed BEFORE dementia ... :think: Entertainment first, caring for the *supposed* loved one last.

Priorities, priorities.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

:chuckle: What on earth would they have to be jealous of?

You obviously didn't read Granite's article. Most young people don't have it that good. He was a widower who's life was saved by that spicy, flirtatious Donna who melted his heart and made him want to live again. They were always going out together and were deeply in love, actively in a loving relationship to the bittersweet end.

The (probably loveless and arguably cold) staff in Granite's article were reportedly disgusted and very against their sexuality. They were separated at the one controlling daughter's wishes, intentionally, to keep them from being romantic.

 

[Granite]

Shut up and read the article. You obviously only skimmed it. There was no evidence of rape! None! Get it? There is evidence of medical malpractice! Get it?

Wrong, and wrong, and wrong again.

What kind of guy dummies up, conveniently forgets what he did, and then throws out his wife's underwear?

Calm down and drop your high and mighty hysteric routine.