Well sure, of course it is the cause that they hope to get sympathy for. But, depending on the circumstances, there is always other ways to protest than by making your own self weaker and more miserable. In fact, that’s the opposite of what you’d want to do.
And sure I have sympathy for mankind. As they say, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. You don’t solve your problems by intentionally creating even worse and more dire conditions for yourself. If you INTENTIONALLY make things worse for yourself how can you expect to be taken seriously?
Here’s food: eat. Or blame only yourself when you starve.
I agree this is the law. And I’ve read the thread twice, considering the arguments pro and con. IMHO, the law is wrong. To me, self-deliverance should be a basic right. Our response to a hunger striker should be the same as we take to anyone seeking to end his life. Do you understand the consequences? Is this a decision you would regret later? It’s okay to impose a “time out,” measured in days or weeks. Once this has expired, our response should be to accommodate the hunger striker and make his exit as painless as possible. Non-trivially, this would rob the hunger striker of his platform. We’re not doing this because we’re wrong; we’re doing it because we respect your right of self-determination. Do this a few times and posturing (insincere) hunger strikes will lose their power.
FWIW, if I were a Gitmo detainee, this is the choice I would make. Not that I hate life. But indefinite detention with no realistic prospect of release sucks. The least you can do is let me out by own decision.
Sure it does. But allowing prisoners in the care of our prison system or military to starve to death would bother me more. There’s no perfect answer here, just a few bad ones to choose from.
I’m well aware of that. This thread is about hunger strikes, after all. That said, declining to force-feed someone who refuses to eat is allowing that person to starve to death. It’s the greater of two evils, as force-feeding is highly unpleasant and interferes with a prisoner’s rights over their own body. Within the specific context of a prison, however, the duty to keep prisoners alive is paramount, and force-feeding is the lesser evil.
If someone in the free world wanted to go on a hunger strike and die, more power to them.
Not a fun position to be in for anyone involved. And those involved are never the politicians or bureaucrats whose decisions led to these situations either.
Also, while the AMA may issue a statement on how it opposes force-feeding, keep in mind that the AMA is a lobbying group, not the spokesman for all physicians.
For those interested, it’s not universally agreed a hunger strike is impermissible. See these decisions by the Georgia and Florida courts. Cf. these decisions in Maryland and California regarding an inmate’s right to refuse life-saving treatment in non-hunger strike situations. To be clear, these are minority opinions, see this law review article, but it’s a subject upon which reasonable minds can disagree.
Right, but Prisoners also have a whole bunch of rights which GTMO detainees don’t have, eg the right to a speedy trial, the right to see the evidence against them, etc. Many of the people who are hunger striking in GTMO have never been charged. Some of them have been cleared for release.
Morally and ethically you cannot say that force feeding a prisoner who has been tried and convicted of a felony is the same thing as force feeding an “indefinite detainee” who has never been charged with any crime.
Legally they are not the same situation either. Are Guatamno bay detainees “wards of the state” that the state has a duty to protect? Who the hell knows, but its not the same answer as it is for US prisoners who have been tried and convicted.
This is all true, but I don’t see a connection to force-feeding of hunger strikers.
[QUOTE=coremelt]
Morally and ethically you cannot say that force feeding a prisoner who has been tried and convicted of a felony is the same thing as force feeding an “indefinite detainee” who has never been charged with any crime.
[/quote]
How is it not the same? The source of the moral duty is the prisoner being at the mercy and in the care of the prison. This is equally applicable to convicted felons and indefinite detainees.
Are you suggesting that felons shouldn’t be allowed to starve themselves, but detainees should? If so, why?
[QUOTE=coremelt]
Legally they are not the same situation either. Are Guatamno bay detainees “wards of the state” that the state has a duty to protect? Who the hell knows, but its not the same answer as it is for US prisoners who have been tried and convicted.
[/QUOTE]
It may be legally unclear, but the moral duty is quite clear. The detainees are in the care of the Army, forbidden to leave, and at the Army’s mercy. That creates a moral duty to care for them regardless of their legal status as POWs, detainees, criminal suspects, etc.
Latest moves are that the companies that provide the feeding substances and anti-emetics necessary are being encouraged to not send such supplies to the US Government- the same tactic being used to try to force the US into the modern world by denying them access to drugs to kill prisoners.
Most of the rest of the Western World has forbidden forcible feeding of hunger strikers. The USA is again an exception to the general rule. It stands outwith the humane western Democracies in its own special place.
Are you sure that the countries where the prison staff stands by and watches a prisoner in their care horribly starve themselves to death are the humane ones? That conduct seems to be in direct opposition to what “humane” means.
That’s already off the table, given that these people are incarcerated. That precludes following their wishes.
Force-feeding isn’t about preventing a crime. If the U.S. ever did decide to look the other way on prisoner suicides, this particular method is about the least ethical way to go about it.
