Carers allowed to help clients visit sex workers

[StealthPolarBear]

words fail me

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.

'"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 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.

'"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.

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

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.

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]'

This is s complex area.

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

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

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?

@NiceGerbil

'"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?

What's be benefit in being deliberately obtuse?

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.

@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.

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.

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.

@5zeds

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.

If someone doesn't have the mental capacity to understand sexual activity and it's risks / benefits, then facilitating it would not be part of their care plan. That is not the same as someone not having the ability to arrange it / seek it.

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.

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).

@Clymene

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

He has a profoundly disabling set of conditions. There is no realistic alternative to the state providing his care in the absence of a wealthy family. (He lived with his family until he needed to be detained in a secure facility for a while.)

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

agree Balloons hey ho!

The posts on here about discrimination.

I really feel this case is strategic.

Could well be. But that's not sufficient in and of itself to block it via a slippery-slope argument.

Either something is right or it isn't. You shouldn't block A using it as a shield for B. You have to argue each thing on its merits.

Certainly careful scrutiny is in order, and get ready for the next fight.

Permitting gay marriage did arguably help lead to the mess we're in now, where all the gay rights orgs suddenly needed something to do, so latched onto "trans rights".

Doesn't mean we shouldn't have permitted gay marriage.

@2020isnotbehaving

It’s not up for able bodied people to decide what other adults want to do just because they have a disability though. It’s like saying every pub has a step but as your carer I don’t feel you have a right to go to the pub it’s not a human right. Even if practically every adult will have a drinking in pub experience. Sorry I’ve got to much to do.

A carer is a paid employer, there must be plenty of office PAs that have booked drinks in strip clubs and hotel rooms for their bosses after parties. No one has a problem when that’s same sort of thing.

I do indeed have a problem with PAs being asked to do that as it happens. So a least someone has a problem with it!! (And I see I am. unsurprisingly, not the only one)

That being said I take your points on law and agency of a disabled person via a carer and why the judgement went as it did. I agree the issue is the paucity of the law with regards to buying women in general - that bar is too low.

I would not be that carer though, I would leave if that was a part of the job even if the person wasn't a threat to women. Logically they should be able to do what able bodied men can do but to me able bodied men shouldn't be buying women either so it would be a step too far for me. I just couldn't perform the act of (what to me seems like) pimping, it goes well beyonf the bounds of caring imo.

The law in this country with regard to prostitution is wrong and needs to be changed. The commodification of women affects ALL women and girls and this really needs to start being taken into account.

Sorry I didn't mean 'paucity' it doesn't work there at all - for that substitute 'inadequacy' - I forgot to change it!

@LizziesTwin

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).

Good to hear.

I think when you have worked in this field it is much easier to envisage how this particular scenario has ended up in front of the court of protection.

I've worked with many gentlemen with learning disabilities in forensic settings who would obsess over stuff like this (not this exact situation but similar) . But ultimately they could talk about it as much as they liked but none of the staff members would actually assist them to carry it out A) because of their own moral objection to it and B) because it would fly in the face of the care plans and risk assessments in place to keep the client and the public safe.

Just like it's not illegal for someone to hang around outside a school, it's not illegal to pay for sex, but if their care plan states that watching children is a risk indicator for that person / the person is a risk to women then their care plan will explicitly state to avoid routes going past schools/ don't facilitate situations where the person may present as a risk to a woman he is having sex with.

This gentleman and his advocate have had it clarified that if someone does help him pay for sex they won't be prosecuted because it's legal, but it's not going to undo the risk assessments and care plans that will be in place for him that will most likely prevent that scenario from happening.

As everyone else has said, this is just a clarification of the existing law that it's legal to pay for sex. That's the law that needs changing.