Carers allowed to help clients visit sex workers

Other people receive state-funded care and have the capacity to make arrangements themselves.

A friend of mine was a palliative care nurse and was asked by more than one patient to help them find a prostitute. She said she just laughed and told them they must be joking (we’ve talked about this as it relates to quality of life).

A court case where in reality there was no risk to the carers because this goes on all the time and has done for years and no one really cares?

The judgment lays out the special circumstances very clearly.

The man in question has the well-articulated desire to have sex and lacks the capacity to arrange it for himself which is why he would need to request that a carer arranges the matter and the practicalities. A risk assessment needs to be done both for the adult and the sex worker.

I've quoted it before (maybe the Nordic model thread) but Hayden remarked on reports from care teams that they find it helpful to facilitate sex for some young men with brain injuries whose behaviour is very challenging. Again, questions of capacity would apply concerning their ability to book appropriate transactions.

we cannot hold someone with a disability to a higher moral standard to someone who is non-disabled.

Hayden's potted history of legal instruments to deny sex to adults with learning disabilities etc. was eye-opening. He also gave a very clear history of the considerations of abuse, vulnerability, and exploitation for affected adults. Hayden also acknowledged that there is a distressing rate of institutional abuse of such adults.

As balloonsandboobies and PPs highlight, it is other factors that are relevant.

I think if you don’t have the mental capacity to engage in sexual relationships then assisting you to fulfill that role is abuse. This is why it is illegal to engage in these activities with minors and I would hope with the elderly.

Those saying it may be strategic; what do you mean?

I understand the legal POV that he may be being prevented from accessing something that able bodied men can and as a point of law that's relevant, but by God, this is grim. It reminds me of the suggestion in the mid 90's that nurses should provide 'relief' to patients who were unable to facilitate it themselves. The nursing unions didn't react well as I recall.

Setting the legal arguments to one side, the Overton Window has shifted so so far into dreadful territory. I'm not sure how we shift it back.

@highame there are an awful lot of people on this thread who've asked how disabled people or those with LD would even know about sex / prostitution. That level of Ignorance and lack of understanding is quite depressing really.

As has been said several times already on this thread, we cannot hold someone with a disability to a higher moral standard to someone who is non-disabled.
And for those asking that a woman women wouldn't be afforded the same rights, that is incorrect.

Paying for sex is legal. That's what needs to be challenged.

Years ago I used to assist in sailing away camps for disabled kids. One of the things I learned is that sex drive is not lessened just because of a disability (nor the consumption of alcohol ). Disabled people are people and if a man can get assistance procure a prostitute then he should have the right to do that, in the same way as a disabled woman should. Women also use prostitutes, they;re often called gigolos. Sex is a driver and the morality of whether prostitutes should or should not be available is not the correct argument because it is lawful. The carers should have the protection of the court should they need it.

Getting rid of prostitution is a different argument. This argument is, does a disabled person have the right to access paid sex?

This would also presumably be taxpayer funded. I assume his care is paid for by the state.

This happens in New Zealand and it is taxpayer funded. A friend of my worked as a occupational therapist in a accident rehabilitation centre where therapy included employing prostitutes at the States cost. She quit over been asked assist a homosexual therapy session.

This is s complex area.

Preventing people forming romantic/ sexual relationships with others is not the same as facilitating access to sex for cash.

True, smoked duck.

There's also a history of women being institutionalised because they were sexually active. Women and girls who stepped out of line.

Here's an account of JFK's sister getting lobotomised because of her behaviour.

'We went through the top of the head, I think Rosemary was awake. She had a mild tranquilizer. I made a surgical incision in the brain through the skull. It was near the front. It was on both sides. We just made a small incision, no more than an inch." The instrument Dr. Watts used looked like a butter knife. He swung it up and down to cut brain tissue. "We put an instrument inside", he said. As Dr. Watts cut, Dr. Freeman asked Rosemary some questions. For example, he asked her to recite the Lord's Prayer or sing "God Bless America" or count backward. "We made an estimate on how far to cut based on how she responded." When Rosemary began to become incoherent, they stopped.[25]'

Jesus Christ. Why do men feel like they are entitled to sex? Why can't they just have a wank? It's like they're animals or something, they've just got to have a hole to stick it in, disgusting. Men's needs first, as always.

It's not been at all unusual in the past for people who were institutionalised, with mental health disorders, or cognitive impairments, to be prevented from sexual activity. Treated as children essentially

'"The secretary of state may not obstruct those who wish to participate in lawful transactions nor, logically, those who wish to help them be they carers or otherwise."'

Gambling?
Smoking?
Drinking to excess? Drinking at all?
Hanging around outside a girls school and having a good old creepy stare?
Going up the high street and approaching women and girls and asking for a date?

None of that is illegal.

What a load of shit.

And the amount of posts saying yeah it's discriminatory not to facilitate men to pay to fuck women. Really? That's not what discrimination is. Bloody hell.

The fact he has violent sexual fantasies reminds me of an article about getting women in to care homes.

They talked about a young man who had s thing about throttling and the female carers found him difficult due to his sexual well, he was handsy and aggressive.

They would get women in for him.

There was a lot of stuff about risk assessment for him to ensure it was ok for him.

There was nothing about a risk assessment for the women. Nothing about whether they were advised that he was sexually inappropriate and had a thing for throttling. Nothing acknowledging that the women might themselves be vulnerable.

This case has strategic written all over it for me.

'"It is important to recognise that those with mental health disorders have, in the past, effectively been prevented, by the law, from engaging in sexual relations," said the judge.'

Mental health disorders? When have people with mental health disorders been prevented from sex? Something like 20% of the adult population is on ADs... What on earth does he mean?

The posts on here about discrimination.

I really feel this case is strategic.

So many thoughts and it's so late! Sorry may be a few posts.

1. Laws to stop discrimination are not about everyone being able to do everything. The fact that men pay for sex is contentious and certainly not a right. This judgement confirms men have a right to fuck a woman for cash if they want to. That's not good.

Not read the whole thread.

I am interested in how this case actually came about.

It's been reported in the news and has been s thing for years, a known thing, that care homes of various types will get women in for sex with the residents.

It's not even newsworthy. No drama, no arrests, news articles met with meh.

So who has really brought this case and why? We know that strategic lawsuits have been seen as a good move elsewhere.

This seems very iffy to me. A court case where in reality there was no risk to the carers because this goes on all the time and has done for years and no one really cares?

A man who is particularly vulnerable?

Hmmmmmmmmmmm. This feels off to me.

Don't worry , I'm sure the trade unions for carers will be come down hard on this like a ton of bricks ! Oh no but wait...

What men want men get,...
Yes
... nothing has changed.
I disagree with this part though, because things did start to change, but things are sliding backwards now. It's so depressing, I worry so much for the future of my young female relatives and friends.

When I think of all the strong working class women I grew up with, I think they would he turning in their grave at all this that's going on. What I read on these boards

But @Glasstabletop the law hasn't changed. It's been clarified but not changed.

No one is compelling anyone to do anything. The case has clarified that if the man is able to find someone willing to assist him to pay for sex then that person will be treated as a proxy rather than as a pimp. It's essentially allowing for a 'reasonable adjustment' to allow him to access a 'service' that many other men legally access. The moral implications and concerns surrounding that 'service' are an entirely different issue.

If the COP had been asked e.g to consider if a carer could be asked to carry an unlicensed hand gun on behalf of the man as he couldn't do it himself then the judgement would have gone the other way, because unlike buying sex the man would have been committing a criminal act if he was carrying the gun himself and therefore the carer would also be committing an offence even if they were only acting as a proxy carrier.

Flipping heck. However I have heard of this going on before now.

Of course, carers cannot be forced to facilitate anything like that, it won't be in their contract of employment. If they don't mind, they can do it, though what that actually entails I can't imagine other than driving their client to an appointment or, if the client sees the person at home, seeing them in and out. The mind boggles.

In all honesty I would have thought the clients would have been too embarrassed to ask anyone to help them meet....someone.

I do know that carers are often propositioned, they are taught how to deal with, and deflect, situations like that.

I worked in a care home when I was a student. There was one resident every morning we'd go in his room and he had his watch round his erect penis and he'd say 'what time is it'. Carers have enough to put up with.