A recent pit thread got me thinking about this topic.
The idea of force feeding someone who has chosen to make a protest by denying themselves food is, to me, deeply disturbing But I honestly don’t know whether it is right or wrong.
I think if a free person chooses to starve themself as a form of protest, that choice and conviction should be respected.
However, a prisoner is a ward of the state, so I think that the state has responsibility for their welfare.
“But Not,” you may say, “if you think free people have a right to starve themselves, isn’t force feeding prisoners just adding to their punishment?”
I think it’s a murky topic.
And I know it’s rather weak to come into Great Debates without a firm opinion of my own from which to debate.
But I’m hoping to have my mind shaped and broadened by whatever insights the board has to offer, one way or the other. (Hence not posting it in IMHO.)
The prisoner’s goal is generally to force us into a choice between choice 1 and 2 with the hope that, the bad publicity and more guilt that would accompany choice 2 will be so great that we will be forced to choose option 1.
in many cases option 1 may be the best choice but there are clearly cases where the demands are unreasonable and we have to choose one of the other alternatives. If the prisoners are willing to starve themselves to death in order to achieve their goals they are also probably willing to undergo unpleasant and humiliating forced feedings.
From the prisoners point of view the problem of the forced feedings is that it presents us with a an alternative to option 2 thus making it easier for us to avoid option 1, and so reduces their bargaining position. But we are not under any obligation to force ourselves into a worse set of options.
Force feeding is a brutal process and engaging in it has many ethical and political consequences. Whether avoiding those consequences are worth the price of giving into the prisoners demands should be viewed on a case by case basis, but in the choice between starving to death vs force feedings I will go with the feedings.
I would also point out that we as a matter of course attempt to remove prisoners ability to kill themselves while under our custody (removing shoe strings and the like) why shouldn’t we also remove this method of suicide.
The American Medical Association and the World Medical Association both say that force feeding unwilling patients is unethical. I agree. So, who is going to perform the procedure? The procedure is not risk free.
Also, what about prisoners who do not “declare” a hunger strike, but just stop eating? Is a dietician/nutritionist monitoring prison mealtime? If prisoner ZE75409 chooses to not finish his raspberry compote is it noted? It seems that the system is not treating an anorectic prisoner, it is punishing a vocal prisoner.
From a deontological perspective, the prison has a duty to care for the prisoners. By placing them in prison, they have created a condition whereby the prisoners are unable to care for themselves, or avail themselves of outside care. It’s the prison, or nothing. This duty is a profound one; the prisoners are utterly at the mercy of the prison.
Allowing a prisoner to die would be a breach of that duty. Subjecting the prisoner to a painful, invasive, but lifesaving procedure is a much lesser breach. Therefore, it is not wrong to force feed prisoners.
Constitutional issues are triggered here. To be force fed is without a doubt a SEIZURE under the 4th AM. I would say it is a 4th AM violation.
I have this case in my head about if the forcible extraction of a bullet was legally permissable, it was answered in the NEGATIVE.
Internal citation;
Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757 (1966), held, inter alia, that a State may, over the suspect’s protest, have a physician extract blood from a person suspected of drunken driving without violation of the suspect’s right secured by the Fourth Amendment not to be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures. However, Schmerber cautioned:
“That we today hold that the Constitution does not forbid the States['] minor intrusions into an individual’s body under stringently limited conditions in no way indicates that it permits more substantial intrusions, or intrusions under other conditions.”
True, the 8th AM’s deliberate indifference doctrine madates a govt. see to a prisoners/detainee’s care/health. However, a prisoner has a choice to eat as long as food is provided.
A prisoner also has a 1st AM right to protest/symbolic speech, etc.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Note the term “unreasonable”. Are you going to argue that it’s “reasonable” to let a prisoner kill himself? If a prisoner is holding his head under water (say in a toilet), is it “unreasonable” to pull him out?
I think we might argue over when it is appropriate to start force feeding, but surely the constitution doesn’t say we must allow prisoners to kill themselves.
Here is a good piece. One can argue TWO rights conflict, one of the prisoner and one of the state.
Not pulling him out is subject to civil liability, as it is an EXIGENCY situation where a warrant can’t be obtained. IF a govt. wishes to force feed a prisoner, let them seek Court approval.
I’m OK with that. No prisoner is going to starve himself to death in a day, so there should be plenty of time for the court to issue an order.
But… I also have no problem with the legislature approving in advance guidelines for the prisons to use instead of going the route through the judicial system. The prisoner can then challenge that in court.
I think it’s wrong because I think people should be able to kill themselves if they want to. I don’t have any great principle to stand on, it’s just what I think, and I wouldn’t want to be force fed if I didn’t want to eat. The government intervening in a person’s decision to end it all bothers me, it smacks of Right to Life bullshit.
I don’t really care if people are mentally ill or have some mistaken reason for killing themself. It’s just how I feel about this (in regards to government action).
Sure, I can agree to that as an ideal. But under the current (US) constitution, you do not have the right to kill yourself. So the question is, does the state currently have the authority to force-feed prisoners. Prisoners, not the general population.
Here is an excellent source, and it also cites my Schmerber case later on;
All but one of the few courts addressing this issue have permitted
the government to force-feed the prisoner.6 Moreover, a federal code
regulation permitting force-feeding of federal prisoners7 has been
upheld as constitutional. 8 This Note, while recognizing that forcefeeding
may under certain circumstances be constitutional, criticizes
the reasoning of the decisions that have permitted force-feeding.
I don’t know, it’s not directly addressed in the constitution, so obviously it’s arguable. But I don’t think that prisoners being wards of the state are under a duty to force someone to eat as long as the food has been made available. Suppose a prisoner has a tumor that will kill them in a short time if it isn’t removed. Could the state force that person to have that tumor removed?
…In Von Holden v. Chapman,32 however, a New York appellate
court permitted the force-feeding of a prisoner, 33 stating that: "*t is
self-evident that the right to privacy does not include the right to
commit suicide. ’ 34 Yet, the right to prevent force-feeding can exist
independently of any right to commit suicide.35..
Prisoners are wards of the state. The prison system is legally obligated to protect them, even from themselves. So letting them starve themselves is not an option.
Force feeding somebody may not be risk-free but it’s clearly less of a risk than allowing them to starve themself to death.
A prisoner doesn’t have to declare he’s on a hunger strike. If he doesn’t eat for three days, it’s assumed he’s on a de facto hunger strike even if he denies this.
There’s an extensive procedure involved. A prisoner on a hunger strike is weighed every day and seen by a physician once a day. He’ll be checked by a nurse once every eight hours. He’ll be interviewed by psych staff. If there are concerns he’s generally self-destructive, he’ll be placed on a round-the-clock suicide watch.
Forced feeding is not automatic. A person can live for a while without eating. So a prisoner won’t be force fed until his health is in danger from not eating. Forced feedings are, of course, conducted by medical staff.
I’ve never heard of any constitutional issues involved in forced feedings. By my reading, the Fourth Amendment is not relevant here. It protects your person, but that protection is specifically from unreasonable searches and seizures. A forced feeding to a person who is already incarcerated does not qualify as a search or a seizure.
As always, I’m describing conditions and procedures in New York. Other states may have different conditions and procedures. Lawbuff’s link pointed me to the case of Zant v. Prevatte, for example, in which a Georgia court ruled a prisoner does have the constitutional right to refuse to eat.
Serious question from honest ignorance: does the Fourth Amendment apply to prisoners? They can have their cells searched at any time. They can have their bodies searched at any time! Embarrassingly thorough cavity searches! I had thought that this was one of those things you simply lose when in prison.
(Just as, for obvious reasons, you lose your Second Amendment rights too…)
It’s not “unreasonable” to expect that your prison cell is not the same as your home. Would a “reasonable” person expect that prison officials need a warrant to search a prison cell?
That assumes that it is being done for the prisoner’s sake, and not just because it makes you look bad. If your prisoner considers their current predicament a fate worse than death (such as because they’re an innocent man who has been locked in Gitmo for a decade and sees no possibility that he’ll ever be released), you are not doing them a favour by robbing him of the only means of escape he has left. And that’s assuming you’re legitimately trying to stop him killing himself, and not just using his supposed suicidal tendencies as an excuse to torture him.