Real life example of balancing rights - interested in opinions

Indeed.

This is where be kind gets us.. some women not able to ask for what they really want.

I agree with the suggestion above that a female chaperone is the minimum. I re-read the op and was reminded that this is a non-verbal woman with the developmental age of about 15 months. Having same sex intimate care is just basic safeguarding in this situation really.

Agreed.

As an absolute minimum there should be a female chaperone if a male carer is doing personal care.

We absolutely don't know the sister has no problem with support from both men and women because, as the OP says, she is non-verbal and has a developmental age of around 15 months. So she's not able to understand the concept of consent or give it. It's the who OP doesn't have a problem with her presumably adult, non-verbal, severely-lacking-capacity sister being looked after at night by a lone man.

You're painting this as a conflict of rights only, we don't have all the information.
We know your sister has no problem having support from men or women.
We know this new person does have a problem with support from men.
What we don't know is WHY this new person doesn't want support from men, neither should we and nor she she be expected to have a reason, it is enough that she and/ or her family say no.
Do you think your, 'we're alright so she should suck it up' attitude is 'being kind?'

This is a question of money, not rights.
Pay the carers and they will stay.

I am so, so sorry but the OP needs to read this, from beginning to end, and then reconsider who should be providing intimate care to her sister. It has to be faced.
www.filia.org.uk/latest-news/2021/12/21/male-carers-and-the-sexual-abuse-of-disabled-women

I sympathise with the situation and obviously it's very difficult for your sister and family.

However this isn't about a conflict of rights (assuming anyone has the right to continuously the same carer) or an issue you can resolve in this way. It might help to look at a different example.

Let's agree Alice has the right to take 6 months' maternity leave from her job. She usually works Saturdays. Now Alex, male is being told to work Saturdays. However he is Jewish and working Saturdays is prohibited by his religion.

Would anyone say Alice shouldn't be allowed to take maternity leave because it conflicts with Alex's religious rights? That this conflict should be resolved? Of course not. But someone who didn't think women should have maternity leave would blame Alice for the situation.

Going back to your sister, I don't think she has the right as such to continuous care but you can advocate for the difficulties different carers are having on her.

That said, it doesn't seem to actually be the impact of the new family but that they are being used as a scapegoat for staffing difficulties. It sounds like they need to pay carers more for working permanent nights.

In terms of resolving the actual situation, there’s not much you can do while keeping her in this setting as staffing is obviously out of your hands - what you have control over is whether you keep her there or move her to a better-staffed facility (although obviously your sister should still be receiving intimate care from a woman in any setting given her lack of ability to consent), and obviously finding a suitable setting is like finding a needle in a haystack so that’s unlikely to be a realistic option.

The issue is with the pay and conditions for staff in these settings, as it is incredibly challenging to find and retain good staff. Because a lot of it is council-funded, that affects the budgets available, so while it’s not a direct solution, I think the long-term answer is lobbying your MP and campaigning for better-funded social care. Not particularly helpful, I know.

I agree.

In a situation where a woman receiving the care can’t communicate, surely it is best practice to assume they don’t consent to being intimately touched by a man rather than assuming they do?

Did this occur when she was a child too?

I knew there were major issues with male carers committing assaults but your post is really shocking, @TheCourseOfTheRiverChanged

This is quite an alarming post to me.
I worked in disability services for five years and one of the reasons I moved away from that area of work was because I found it too hard to deal with the prevalence of rape of my female clients. It was 100%. I got used to asking not if they had been sexually assaulted in their lives, but when.
OP my honest advice would be to use the arrival of this new housemate in the care home to say you also want your sister to only receive same sex intimate care. And you want assurance that there will be a female carer on staff, 24/7.

@Pluvia - it's no longer a cushy job the night shift. A relative has just left a lovely care place (small) after about 4 years sleep in shifts - the sleep was 12 to 6 but they were normally woken once or twice and at certain times if a client was poorly no sleep at all. The rate, as it doesn't need to be NMW was £25 for the 6 hours unless you're up for over an hour when you'd get NMW for that hour. When clients start staying up all night there has to be great debate about payment as well. They also did the 4 hours before midnight and 2 after 6am so a lot of work though at least for NMW. Their facility was all male normally but they would take females as well when spaces for the client were scarce but this didn't always work well. Ultimately there's just not enough resource in care altogether sadly.

I wonder what the facility's insurers would have to say about only males being available at night? That sounds like a massive safeguarding risk to me. Non-verbal patients, patients with extremely limited capacity?

This is not balancing of right issue.

Its not a right for men to be guaranteed the overnight shifts, its not a right to have the same members of staff.

It is a right to have same sex care.

Single sex care for females, as well as always having one male and one female carer on the premises should be best practice. The stats for abuse by male carers are horrifying.

Single sex care for vulnerable females is, without doubt, good safeguarding practice. I don't think that the family of the new resident should be made to look for a single sex facility or feel bad in any way for making a sensible and legal request.

This.

I'm shocked that male carers have been allowed to do your sister's personal care, tbh. She has no way of communicating to you if any of them have abused her.

But any woman could have changed her mind and said she did want to start doing nightshifts, and they'd still have this same situation with the men moaning.

Anyway, of course women are entitled to request same sex intimate care, that's got to be the absolute priority here.

I do not understand why they cannot have one make one female staff member on at night ?

On a purely safeguarding basis I would always want female carers for any woman I cared about. It's basic safeguarding sense. 96% of the people behind bars for sexual offences are male. Male predators are drawn to jobs that allow them easy access to vulnerable people, male or female. They train for jobs such as social workers (remember all the children's home scandals?), nursery workers, HCPs and care home workers where they can have intimate access and where children and the elderly are too young/ confused/ unwell to report what has happened to them.

What if this man were to join the staff at your sister's home?
www.cps.gov.uk/mersey-cheshire/news/care-worker-jailed-having-sexual-relationship-client-and-making-her-pregnant

So let me try to understand what rights you think are being balanced here.

On one hand, we have a severely disabled woman who's family has requested single sex care.

On the other hand we have a severely disabled woman who's family does not mind them having opposite sex care.

The above aren't in opposition. It is fine for someone (or their family) to request single sex care, it is also fine to not request it.

So is the opposite 'right' the right for the night staff to only be male? Or the 'right' for the night staff to include staff that your sister is comfortable with?

I may have misunderstoood, of course. Therefore, I would appreciate it if @Azureal clarified what rights they think are being balanced and how this would relate to sex discrimination.

Is it a mixed sex facility, ie are the patients mixed sex? Are single sex facilities available elsewhere which would be more suitable for this new resident?

It’s clear from the OPs post that the female staff don’t want these shifts. That’s why they now have to use bank staff.

I can see your pov OP but disabled, non-verbal women are so vulnerable to sexual assault, I’m not surprised the family insist on same sex care.