Yes I’m sure briefly wishing ill on a multiple murderer is worse than murdering four people. :rolleyes:
He is suffering from a major mental disorder; what is your explanation for your behaviour?
Human nature.
I don’t wish death on this person.
Which is why I believe not force-feeding him is wrong.
If that’s the case, he should be force fed for his own protection.
If that’s not the case, he should be force fed so he can continue to serve his sentence.
He’s not in a position where he can be allowed to cause himself a slow painful death, no matter how much that might be just.
As opposed to your stance which seems to be it’s ok to let him starve and have that painful death.
But your high ground moral (superior) compass says it’s cool to let him starve anyway because force feeding might hurt and he might not want it?? And you think this is a superior moral stance?
My stance is that people have the right to their own bodies- suicide is not illegal if someone has capacity. We do not stop people of capacity outside prison starving themselves to death. Such rights should only be removed for a good reason. In the UK it is part of the law that people retain that right in prison. The state has no more interest in forcing him to live rather than forcing any other citizen to live.
Yeah, I know what your stance is. But, from my perspective anyway, it’s pretty tenuous especially when you acknowledge the guy has mental issues. I’m good with the difference, but you seem to want to bludgeon folks who disagree with you on this point over the head with your and the UKs supposed moral superiority.
Do you understand the difference between ‘capacity’ and ‘mental disorder’? Obviously not. They are not mutually exclusive.
You are presenting your unsupported moral view against the common law and decisions made by Parliament.
Not just the UK. Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada, all of Europe, most other western liberal democracies.
Even the UK has led itself into inconsistency in this matter as I shall outline after I have done some cooking.
People might like to read ahead on the case of Ian Brady, the Moors murderer.
I suspect that Creggan is doing this to expose the conundrum.
Someone attempting to kill themselves because of a mental disorder proves, by that act, that they don’t have the capacity to make rational decisions. That should not even be a point that’s up for debate.
If a government chooses to use a different definition of “capacity” to that, presumably to absolve themselves of responsibility, that’s a different matter.
I hope, as I’ve said before, that if my depression worsens and I end up trying to kill myself, I see more compassionate medical professionals than you.
Also, you do realise that prisoners are not allowed to kill themselves, right? That they can be prevented, by force if necessary, from doing so?
Prisoners are allowed to kill themselves by starving themselves. Also if they take an overdose or cut their wrists, and refuse treatment, no medical professional will intervene. If they have capacity. Being mentally disordered does not necessarily indicate loss of capacity.
Morality is an individual belief with as much relevance as belief about religion or climate change. The law is the law. Often the two conflict.
Being imprisoned indicates loss of capacity.
Patient “B” is in a secure psychiatric hospital. He has a history of psychotic illness in the past but is currently symptom free. He is also mentally disordered with a label of Antisocial personality disorder and Narcissistic personality disorder. He has been highly manipulative within the system. He committed a dreadful index offence.
Patient “C” is in a prison hospital. He has a history of psychotic illness in the past but is currently symptom free. He is also mentally disordered with a label of Antisocial personality disorder and Narcissistic personality disorder. He has been highly manipulative within the system. He committed a dreadful index offence.
Patient “B” is on hunger strike as a means of demanding a move to a prison. He is being force fed.
Patient “C” is on hunger strike as a means of demanding a move to a psychiatric hospital. He is not being force fed.
Patient “B” is said to be force fed as although he is not psychotic he is said to not have capacity.
Patient “C” is said to be allowed to be on hunger strike as despite having a history of psychosis he is said to have capacity.
What is really happening? I would suggest that what is being exercised is the state’s claim to the right to exercise punishment on the body in each case, despite the internal contradiction involved. If “B” wants “X” then it must be denied; if “C” wants “not X” then it must be denied.
No. Prisoners have full capacity save for where it’s exercise is specifically removed by statute. They may make a will, manage their property, marry and divorce, take action in a court, take legal advice etc.
Prison may involve lack of exercise of capacity, but capacity itself remains.
I do not acknowledge the legitimacy of such an axiom.
I have listed above several actions that require capacity that are open to prisoners. Capacity is a measure of possibility, not allowability. It is quite possible to have capacity without having the ability to exercise it. Capacity and exercise of capacity are different objects.
I simply don’t believe you here. I don’t for one moment believe that if I’m taken to hospital after a suicide attempt that I won’t be treated, as I made the “choice” to do so. That’s not what’s happened to me, to anyone else I know with mental illnesses that have led to harm or suicide attempts, or anything I’ve heard about anecdotally, from any source.
Any health care “professional” who refused to treat someone who was dying, unless they have a terminal illness and have refused treatment, should be banned from working in that job, and probably prosecuted.
You are claiming that, if someone was brought to hospital in a distressed state, having taken a potentially lethal overdose, that you wouldn’t treat them if they said not to? That’s monstrous.
Once again you are relying on what your social and political beliefs tell you about how the world should be rather on what the situation is.
I used to work in emergency psychiatry so have good reason to know what the situation actually is.
If a person has taken paracetamol for example and is brought in to A&E and refuses treatment, they will be assessed for mental disorder, capacity and intent. If there is no major mental illness, and they have capacity yet have attempted suicide they will be free to refuse the antidote and will not be administered it. They may die 72 hours later. No medical professional would enforce treatment as that would be assault. Similar rules apply to wrist cutting and other means of suicide.