They aren’t having sex, a voluntarily drunk person can engage in stupid activities with another voluntarily drunk person and there isn’t really an issue with either party “consenting”.
Like if they were both voluntarily drunk and one shot the other and killed them during one of these exchanges, the shooter would still be responsible for a crime despite being drunk, and the other persons consent to the action isn’t really applicaple to a manslaughter charge except you may get a plea deal. However I am an idiot, IANAL, so take all that with a grain of salt.
Also if I’m just taking a joke too seriously I’m sorry.
(By voluntarily drunk, I mean no one drugged them, they did this to themselves)
Wait, are you saying inebriated people can’t consent to fuck, but can consent to get killed? That sounds like an incredibly stupid (legal) take.
If people cannot consent to some overall inconsequential intercourse (any unintended consequence can be alleviated medically), why on earth should they be able to consent to get shot at, which can very possibly lead to permanent injury or death?
Yeah, at least according to the laws in the US! Consent while intoxicated pretty much only refers to sex, or near sexual acts. In any other case, the fact that you intoxicated yourself to the point of making bad decisions, that’s on you (voluntary intoxication).
Like for instance, these gentlemen both agreed to shoot each other while drunk, that would only make either of their consequences worse if there was a death, it wouldn’t absolve them of their decisions to do it. They chose to get drunk, they chose to make bad decisions with guns, there is no consent issue there.
There are a couple exceptions, like you CAN enter into a contract while drunk, but if it was proveably in bad faith for the other party, it can be voided. So you can’t necessarily be taken advantage of for contract purposes, even if you are voluntarily intoxicated.
Again, IANAL. I’m just pointing out consent doesn’t apply in this situation. Especially since, according to being arrested, they were agreeing to perform an illegal act, or an act in an illegal way. The illegality of the act was not based on consent at all, unlike sex.
Actually refers to all forms of legal consent. A contract can be void if the other party is too drunk (to the point of legal incapacity). You also can’t gain informed consent for medical procedures if the other party is too drunk.
Civil rules about preponderance of evidence and if it’s just a he said she said situation that you were obviously incapacitated usually means that you won’t successfully void a contact because you were drunk though
That’s fair I think, consent in context of contracts (however not appropriate for this example). To your point the law does specify a point of being too drunk (black out, incapacitated), and the definition of that point, and if you were at that point can be argued in court. Even if you are not incapacitated, a contract in bad faith when alcohol is involved can also be voided (like I mentioned).
But medically if you are unable to give consent due to intoxication, that means they can do whatever they think they need to, to keep you alive. Unless you have an advanced directive or a family member that can legally make decisions for you. So that’s totally opposite.
Consent isn’t an argument with regards criminal charges, except sex. It’s the only case in which consent changes a legal act into an illegal act.
You can’t legally consent to a crime period, you can choose not to press charges for that crime, but there’s no consent for an illegal act, unless you’ve entered into a contract in some way.
On the medical front it’s actually a big consideration for us. If we give someone benzos and then someone tries to get consent for a non-emergent endoscopy, for example, that consent may not be valid. The level of “intoxication” someone has before we don’t consider informed consent valid is pretty low.
Exactly! That would not be described as voluntary intoxication for this example, you as the hospital are responsible for his state.
If a person came in via the ambulance because they are in the midst of an episode of alcohol poisoning and are non-verbal, do you wait to take action until they can consent? You see what I’m saying?
No, but let’s say that same person came in with a report of vomiting blood, suggesting esophageal varacies which are common in alcoholics due to hepatic portal hypertension but their hematocrit is stable. The next course of action would be to perform an upper endoscopy to see if those varacies are treatable before they really pop and the person bleeds out. That procedure would require informed consent, since it’s not emergent even if it is a direct threat to their survival.
While I would prefer that “shoot this bullet at me” should have the same consent requirements as sex, I assume the redneck bro code will kick in and neither will press charges.
They aren’t having sex, a voluntarily drunk person can engage in stupid activities with another voluntarily drunk person and there isn’t really an issue with either party “consenting”.
Like if they were both voluntarily drunk and one shot the other and killed them during one of these exchanges, the shooter would still be responsible for a crime despite being drunk, and the other persons consent to the action isn’t really applicaple to a manslaughter charge except you may get a plea deal. However I am an idiot, IANAL, so take all that with a grain of salt.
Also if I’m just taking a joke too seriously I’m sorry.
(By voluntarily drunk, I mean no one drugged them, they did this to themselves)
You can’t even sign contracts while visibly intoxicated in most places much less consent to duels lol.
Wait, are you saying inebriated people can’t consent to fuck, but can consent to get killed? That sounds like an incredibly stupid (legal) take.
If people cannot consent to some overall inconsequential intercourse (any unintended consequence can be alleviated medically), why on earth should they be able to consent to get shot at, which can very possibly lead to permanent injury or death?
Think of it this way, someone gets drunk, drives, gets arrested for dui, then claims they couldn’t consent to driving cause they were drunk.
You don’t need “your own consent” to drive a car.
Yeah, at least according to the laws in the US! Consent while intoxicated pretty much only refers to sex, or near sexual acts. In any other case, the fact that you intoxicated yourself to the point of making bad decisions, that’s on you (voluntary intoxication).
Like for instance, these gentlemen both agreed to shoot each other while drunk, that would only make either of their consequences worse if there was a death, it wouldn’t absolve them of their decisions to do it. They chose to get drunk, they chose to make bad decisions with guns, there is no consent issue there.
There are a couple exceptions, like you CAN enter into a contract while drunk, but if it was proveably in bad faith for the other party, it can be voided. So you can’t necessarily be taken advantage of for contract purposes, even if you are voluntarily intoxicated.
Again, IANAL. I’m just pointing out consent doesn’t apply in this situation. Especially since, according to being arrested, they were agreeing to perform an illegal act, or an act in an illegal way. The illegality of the act was not based on consent at all, unlike sex.
Actually refers to all forms of legal consent. A contract can be void if the other party is too drunk (to the point of legal incapacity). You also can’t gain informed consent for medical procedures if the other party is too drunk.
Civil rules about preponderance of evidence and if it’s just a he said she said situation that you were obviously incapacitated usually means that you won’t successfully void a contact because you were drunk though
That’s fair I think, consent in context of contracts (however not appropriate for this example). To your point the law does specify a point of being too drunk (black out, incapacitated), and the definition of that point, and if you were at that point can be argued in court. Even if you are not incapacitated, a contract in bad faith when alcohol is involved can also be voided (like I mentioned).
But medically if you are unable to give consent due to intoxication, that means they can do whatever they think they need to, to keep you alive. Unless you have an advanced directive or a family member that can legally make decisions for you. So that’s totally opposite.
Consent isn’t an argument with regards criminal charges, except sex. It’s the only case in which consent changes a legal act into an illegal act.
You can’t legally consent to a crime period, you can choose not to press charges for that crime, but there’s no consent for an illegal act, unless you’ve entered into a contract in some way.
On the medical front it’s actually a big consideration for us. If we give someone benzos and then someone tries to get consent for a non-emergent endoscopy, for example, that consent may not be valid. The level of “intoxication” someone has before we don’t consider informed consent valid is pretty low.
“If we give someone benzos…”
Exactly! That would not be described as voluntary intoxication for this example, you as the hospital are responsible for his state.
If a person came in via the ambulance because they are in the midst of an episode of alcohol poisoning and are non-verbal, do you wait to take action until they can consent? You see what I’m saying?
No, but let’s say that same person came in with a report of vomiting blood, suggesting esophageal varacies which are common in alcoholics due to hepatic portal hypertension but their hematocrit is stable. The next course of action would be to perform an upper endoscopy to see if those varacies are treatable before they really pop and the person bleeds out. That procedure would require informed consent, since it’s not emergent even if it is a direct threat to their survival.
Lol. Yeah.
While I would prefer that “shoot this bullet at me” should have the same consent requirements as sex, I assume the redneck bro code will kick in and neither will press charges.