I can see how this is wrong. You shouldn't be able to use someones body for this kind of purpose under any circumstance without consent, not even if that person would accept sex at any time while conscious. Unless that person gave permission to do it while she is comatose.
Sex with comatose wife
- Thread starter Syzygys
- Start date
SA, firstly a parent has no where near the unlimited power that is granted by this document. your right they are quite limited in the area's they can grant concent for. this ISNT limited, its unlimited, unconstraned authority to act in the manner the person states they wish.
even if everyone in the world signs a delcoration that what you are concenting to is immoral it makes no difference. only YOUR wishes as expressed by the guardian matter
http://www.service.sa.gov.au/contentpages/lifeevents/details.aspx?id=10&page=4
even if everyone in the world signs a delcoration that what you are concenting to is immoral it makes no difference. only YOUR wishes as expressed by the guardian matter
http://www.service.sa.gov.au/contentpages/lifeevents/details.aspx?id=10&page=4
so asguard it basically means that you can do anything with her body that you want? you could even amputate part of their body at your will when it is not necessary, or use any drug that you want on that person, as long as it does not threaten their lives? you can cut off their hair because you like it better that way, and give permission for other people to have sex with her?
sounds like the ultimate pimp lol...
sounds like the ultimate pimp lol...
sorry the phone rang so i got distracted i was going to give a much better assesment of your post so here it is
makes no difference, its the decision of the guardian as to the wishes of the incapactiated pt and only there assesment of the persons wishes (not what they concider moral or not) matters
actually thats the way medical treatment works not the rest, as to her being subject to something she doesnt want thats an assesment by the guardian and no one else
because thats the power you CHOSE to give them
the potentual for death makes no difference in this case, its only in the medical power of attorney where a decision as to wether something will lead to death makes a difference and then only for REVERSABLE conditions not terminal or PVS cases
wether you or i would chose this, wether every person on earth would makes no difference. the form is apsolute
so if you fill the form out make sure you are specific in your guidlines. as for the rest no one CAN make that assesment UNLESS there is contridictory evidence. its an assumed power, ie its assumed to be correct unless proven otherwise
makes no difference, its the decision of the guardian as to the wishes of the incapactiated pt and only there assesment of the persons wishes (not what they concider moral or not) matters
actually thats the way medical treatment works not the rest, as to her being subject to something she doesnt want thats an assesment by the guardian and no one else
because thats the power you CHOSE to give them
the potentual for death makes no difference in this case, its only in the medical power of attorney where a decision as to wether something will lead to death makes a difference and then only for REVERSABLE conditions not terminal or PVS cases
wether you or i would chose this, wether every person on earth would makes no difference. the form is apsolute
so if you fill the form out make sure you are specific in your guidlines. as for the rest no one CAN make that assesment UNLESS there is contridictory evidence. its an assumed power, ie its assumed to be correct unless proven otherwise
umm you cant break the law, you cant do anything they couldnt do if able to concent (ie no illicit drugs), you cant demand treatment (again for the same reason). yes you could shave there head if your assesment is thats what they would want.
you can do anything they could do themselves if able to give concent but you MUST act in a way that they would have authorised if concious.
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
It seems to me you are confusing legal with moral. I am saying that she very likely does not have that ability. (another issue is whether she is honest about what she is doing and further honest about her own ability to know what the wishes of her sister are)
Legally, perhaps. Morally, that's another can of potatoes.
That's not the point. I think in the vast majority of cases the guardian would have to be honest and say 'I don't know if she would want this or not.' Best case scenario. Not knowing for sure one should err on the side of not allowing what might be considered a rape.
And did the woman know that her husband would decide to have sex with her and get sister's approval? (I know this does not matter legally, if you are correct. I am speaking in terms of morals)
yes, but laws can be immoral or grant immoral powers. I am saying that in this case the law is giving the sister and the husband too much power over the woman's body. It shouldn't be a more powerful image, but perhaps it is: imagine if the sister was sure the woman would want the man to put his dick in her mouth and get off that way.
Sorry, it's fucked up.
Ibid
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
And this is where she should be challenged. Morally I think she can be challenged in broad range. Legally she should be pressed to say how she knows this is what the woman would have wanted. And how the husband played a role in the sister's decision making process.
This isn't open season, this is her husband. The man who comes in every day and reads to her and moves her arms and legs.
You want to put this guy in jail? Are you going to take his place and spend your days reading to this comatose woman? What harm has been done here? This isn't like Kill Bill where random guys are having sex with the comatose Uma Thurman, this is her husband of 20 years.
I really don't see what good could possibly come of throwing this guy in jail or what real harm is being done to the woman. Would it be better for him to forget about her. leave her to rot in the nursing home, not read to her, not help exercize her muscles?
Bells
Staff member
Yes, Queensland does have 'enduring power of guardianship'.
And if I recall correctly, having enduring power of guardianship does not render one innocent if a criminal act. Sex without consent is a criminal act. As it stands, we do not know whether she did explicitly state that her husband could have sex with her while she was in a coma. I doubt it would even enter into the minds of any sane individual to think that their spouse would want to have sex with them while they were in a deep coma after suffering a stroke. So do you really think she would have given informed consent before she suffered her stroke?
Consent in sex needs to be informed and within a fairly recent window, as it applies in the US anyway when one is sleeping and the other wants to have sex with them in their sleep. Therefore, in this case, she would have to have given informed consent in writing fairly recently to when her husband started having sex with her in her comatose state. Marriage does not imply consent.
What you and others are failing to understand here is that his actions are still deemed as being criminal and he will face a trial for it. The main problem that has arisen in the case is the issue of privacy and whether the police had breached his right to privacy by installing a hidden video camera in the room. Therefore, we can assume from that, that she had not explicitly and recently given written consent for her husband to have sex with her while she was in a coma. So yes, he did rape her.
Even the court hearing the right to include the tapes in his trial accept that he committed an illegal act.
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
The argument I was responding to would lead to open season.
I would like him stopped or to stop. And the challenge above for me to take his place reading to her is absurd. Unless you never criticise the moral acts of someone who job or actions you are not willing to perform yourself.
What harm is done to a woman who gets drunk at a party and her boyfriend, who she is in love with, decides to take a quicky?
Strawman. Or are you suggesting that he will only or should only do these things if he gets to have sex with her?
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
Asguard,
it is legal in many place to walk by an old woman who has fallen in the street and laugh at her and move on without helping her. But it is immoral.
It is legal for parents and even strangers to tell a small child that he or she is stupid and will never amount to anything. Parents, it could even be argued have a right to say this to their child, even every day. Nevertheless, it is immoral.
it is legal in many place to walk by an old woman who has fallen in the street and laugh at her and move on without helping her. But it is immoral.
It is legal for parents and even strangers to tell a small child that he or she is stupid and will never amount to anything. Parents, it could even be argued have a right to say this to their child, even every day. Nevertheless, it is immoral.
bells im sorry, i didnt mean that to sound as bitchy as it did when i reread it
if the courts have ruled it was "illegal" then why is the sister still guardian because acting against the persons wishes is the only requirement to strip someone of guardianship?
if the courts have ruled it was "illegal" then why is the sister still guardian because acting against the persons wishes is the only requirement to strip someone of guardianship?
actually that could be concidered cause for the removal of the child.
the thing your not getting is that the only "morality" which matters is that of the women and that of the husband. its her moral compass which is important in a case like this because its HER will not ours which matters
the thing your not getting is that the only "morality" which matters is that of the women and that of the husband. its her moral compass which is important in a case like this because its HER will not ours which matters
Bells
Staff member
And?
That gives him the right to use her as a 'cum bucket' when he feels the urge?
Yes, this is her husband. And one has to question what kind of husband or man has sex with his wife while she's in a coma.
So it is bad when it's some random guy having sex with a woman when she's in a coma but it's ok for her husband to do it? She's in a coma for goodness sake. Therefore, unable to consent to sex. Is that really that hard to understand?
What harm is being done to the woman? So if she's unaware of the rape, there's no harm? Surely that's not what you're saying, is it mad?
Why didn't he just stick to reading to her and helping her exercise her muscles? So if someone is in a vegetative state, it's ok for their spouse to have sex with them because they might come in and read to them and move their limbs around? The nursing staff "fed, cleaned and turned her" every two hours. Does that give them the right to bonk her as well?
What's going to be next? Allowing a husband or partner to bonk a wife just before she dies of injuries or illness just to show how much he loves her? "Quick.. get in the husband.. she's about to die.. yes yes.. he can fuck her while her chest is still open.. it might jolt her back.."
Bells
Staff member
What makes you think that?
Because I don't think guardianship should be allowed to take advantage of a person (like this woman for example)?
because of your comment which says concent must be recent or it expires.
in law this goes for ALL concent you know, what difference is there between deciding who someone sees, how and where they live ect ect to wether or not you belive they would concent to sex?
in law this goes for ALL concent you know, what difference is there between deciding who someone sees, how and where they live ect ect to wether or not you belive they would concent to sex?
Bells
Staff member
I'm sorry?
What does this have to do with consent in regards to who someone wishes to see, how and where they live, etc?
I was talking about consent to sex, Asguard. This thread is about a man who had sex with his comatose wife and the fact that the court threw out the Prosecutor's evidence because he had a right to privacy while in her nursing home room.
Do you think she gave consent to her husband to have sex with her while she was in a coma after suffering a stroke? As it stands, the court that heard the matter of the video evidence stated that his sexual act with his wife is illegal. Do you know why that is? Lack of informed consent. So unless you have evidence that she consented to his having sex with her while she is in a coma, this really is a moot point.
bells, my point is that where is the difference?
whats so special about sex in your opinion?
if your that scared about giving someone that much power DONT give it to them or state your wishes quite clearly and the areas of authority you intend them to act on.
to be honest i really couldnt care less if PB decides to have sex with me when im in a coma, im more interested in making sure she STOPS THEM FEEDING ME
whats so special about sex in your opinion?
if your that scared about giving someone that much power DONT give it to them or state your wishes quite clearly and the areas of authority you intend them to act on.
to be honest i really couldnt care less if PB decides to have sex with me when im in a coma, im more interested in making sure she STOPS THEM FEEDING ME