Sex with comatose wife

They're fucking married. That in itself should be enough to ensure privacy.It's not like he was damaging her internally with rough sex or some shit..

If I thought having sex would bring my comatose wife back, fuck I'd do it.
Must have been a slow news day.
 
Asguard said:
actually SA how do you know she didnt exibit arousal?
your making an assumption there, arosal is only partly to do with the brain and very little to do with the concious brain at all. you can quite easerly stimulate someone who is asleep if your willing to try.

oh and just for your infomation a coma just means that they score under 8 on the GCS and nothing more, at 8 you still have some funtioning. its not till you hit GCS 3 that there is no brain activity at all
Click to expand...

What's under GCS 3? Does such a thing exist?
 
no, a dead body has a GCS of 3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_Coma_Scale

GCS 3 means
that:

Does not open eyes 1
Makes no sounds 1
Makes no movements 1

on the other end a 15 means

Opens eyes spontaneously 4
Oriented, converses normally 5
Obeys Commands 6

now im sure you can see the problem with this right now
a blind person might show no eye reactions ever
someone with alzimers might never be fully oriantated
and a paraplegic or quadrapligic would be limited in there movements permidently

one point on GCS, it only refers to acute illness and trauma, PVS, unconciousness and coma's NOT pts which are nerologically impared by cronic conditions like dementia, by this i mean that whatever the normal state for a dementia pt is equivlant to a GCS 15
 
the man's 60 and his wife's a vegetable. give him a break. she's friggin lucky to be getting any action at all.
 
codanblad said:
the man's 60 and his wife's a vegetable. give him a break. she's friggin lucky to be getting any action at all.
Click to expand...

Are you being serious?

She's in a coma. As you said yourself, she's "a vegetable". Does that mean we should allow people to rape people in vegetative states and consider them lucky because they're actually getting some?:rolleyes:
 
Will it be on the internet anytime soon?

Considering an early post in this thread, if one is a guardian, it seems to me that any decision which might benefit or gratify the guardian ought to be deferred for conflict of interest. The guardian had no right to give sexual consent on behalf of the patient. Indeed, under what circumstances would we accept that anyone could give sexual consent on another person's behalf? (The mythical Book of Genesis, of course, notwithstanding.)

Secondly, it's rather strange what lengths some people will attempt to justify such behavior. Of course, as some of these are men, they're probably looking to improve their chances of getting some.

Third, if the police violated the expectation of privacy, then the exclusion of evidence is proper, and this guy—at least as I see it—gets away with rape.

One thing missing from the article is whether anyone bothered to get a medical opinion on the advisability of the act beforehand. "Expressions of love"? "Trying to bring her back to consciousness"? Who knows? Stranger things have happened. But did anyone ask a doctor before he climbed on board?

The case is not entirely without justice, though. David W. Johnson will henceforth be known as the man who needed his wife to be in a coma in order to get some.

("Divine Savior Nursing Home"? Awesome. And yes, there is humor in the morbid.)
 
actually i wasnt defending him tiassa, i was defending a persons RIGHT to apoint a guardian to make APSOLUTE decisions acording to the wishes of the person.

for a group of people who dont want the goverment deciding what happens to you i find you all hypocritical, this is the apsolute expression of autonomy, no doctor, not goverment offical, no court deciding what happens to you even if you cant make those decisions yourself
 
Poor Guy.
First of all his wife is in a coma, so he's got to make his own meals and wash his own clothes, then he is told he can't even have sex with her.
What more can go wrong?
 
Did you get any on your shoes? Oh, wait.

Absolute autonomy within the context of civilized society isn't even a libertarian wet dream. It's more like dreaming of a dry-hump in the back of a '73 Volkswagen.
 
ok apsolute to the level that a person always has while able to concent themself
 
tiassa ill tell you a few things about myself, i watched my great aunt die of alzimers. mum put her into care down the road after the guardianship board apointed her guardian and i used to go and see her. i watched her slowly forget who we were, i saw her after she set her bed alight one night because she forgot to put her smoke out before she went to bed, i watched the nurses have to bath her and take her to the toilet because she couldnt rember how any more, but the one thing that stands out in my mind was her standing on the courner of the road near the rest home waiting for a tram to go home to see her sister. she didnt realise she was out where we lived and she couldnt even understand the fact that there WAS no tram ever going to come (because there was no tram line) and she would never see her sister again because she died. i rember her asking for her every day and learning over and over again that she had died till we started lying to her because it was just to cruel to keep telling her.

I also know there is a good chance that one day that will be my mother, and then me and the rest of us because we have such a strong family history of it

and i know one thing, i would rather stave to death than know that was my fate, if the cost of that is that PB raped me, had apsolute control over me so that she can carry out my directions of under NO circumstances letting me live like that then so be it.

i really dont care

i will never live with in a PVS with no chance of recovery, fed by a feeding tube, i will NEVER live like a vegtable trapped inside my own head and unable to communicate forever screaming inside my own mind and i will NEVER let myself lose my mind piece by piece.

i have made that apsolutly clear to everyone i know and i have written it into the medical power of attorny. however that document doesnt give her enough power so i will be filling out the enduring power of guardianship form because there is no way in HELL i am going to relie on some court to carry this out for me.

tell me, would you rather be raped or trapped inside your own skull?
 
My #1 reason for not attempting suicide has been the fact that if I fuck it up, I could wind up a vegetable. Fuck that. Living to the ripe old age of 75 (44 years) without being able to move anything but my eyes? No thank you.
 
Tiassa said:
Considering an early post in this thread, if one is a guardian, it seems to me that any decision which might benefit or gratify the guardian ought to be deferred for conflict of interest. The guardian had no right to give sexual consent on behalf of the patient. Indeed, under what circumstances would we accept that anyone could give sexual consent on another person's behalf? (The mythical Book of Genesis, of course, notwithstanding.)

Secondly, it's rather strange what lengths some people will attempt to justify such behavior. Of course, as some of these are men, they're probably looking to improve their chances of getting some.

Third, if the police violated the expectation of privacy, then the exclusion of evidence is proper, and this guy—at least as I see it—gets away with rape.

One thing missing from the article is whether anyone bothered to get a medical opinion on the advisability of the act beforehand. "Expressions of love"? "Trying to bring her back to consciousness"? Who knows? Stranger things have happened. But did anyone ask a doctor before he climbed on board?

The case is not entirely without justice, though. David W. Johnson will henceforth be known as the man who needed his wife to be in a coma in order to get some.

("Divine Savior Nursing Home"? Awesome. And yes, there is humor in the morbid.)
Click to expand...

I agree with you Tiassa, I think you said it well. I find this whole subject disgusting. I think it is incredibly crude and disrespectful of his wife.
 
I think the sister knows both the woman and her husband and is in a better position to make decisions than some third party. I doubt the comatose woman suffered from being held and loved and if it gave some comfort to the man, I don't see what the problem is. Its not like they were prostituting her for money or something.

I'm pretty sure if I was in a conditon where I could feel but not express myself I would rather be held than ignored.
 
Asguard said:
actually i wasnt defending him tiassa, i was defending a persons RIGHT to apoint a guardian to make APSOLUTE decisions acording to the wishes of the person.

for a group of people who dont want the goverment deciding what happens to you i find you all hypocritical, this is the apsolute expression of autonomy, no doctor, not goverment offical, no court deciding what happens to you even if you cant make those decisions yourself
Click to expand...

I also don't want someone deciding that someone else can have sex with me when I am unconscious. It is not so simple as not wanting the government to interfere. In actual fact the government WILL interfere in this case.

For example. An orderly, doctor, friend, the woman's mother

discovers the husband 'having sex with' his wife...

they stop him.

The government can be called in to enforce his right to have sex with her. And it sounds like they would be.

I would be much more relaxed about this if the woman had actually spoken or written about the precise act, however unlikely this would be - she'd have had to have been psychic.

When the acts and powers controlled by the individual via this contract come under fairly logical ranges, OK. But when the act itself is one that most people would not want in general......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top