I did, you clearly havent.
Pjen, as is often the case, does not speak for the rest of the world, or even the rest of the UK.
If someone in the community is trying to starve themselves to death, one would hope they received treatment for their obvious mental illness, including whatever feeding is necessary to keep them alive.
If someone’s in prison, the should be kept alive by whatever means to complete their sentence, and in the case of a hunger strike, to prevent inmates from having a say in how prisons are run.
Force feeding is no more “torture” than forcibly moving a prisoner to their cell if they won’t go by choice. You give up many rights when you are convicted of a crime, there’s no reason suicide shouldn’t be one of them.
Stephan, as usual, offers his own fantasies rather than investigating what the law actually says.
There is nothing factual in his post but he will refuse to post any cites in support as usual.
It is a little sad to see such behaviour repeated regularly with no hint of learning occurring.
Your reading comprehension as to my username is about as good as for the rest of my post, it appears.
My post was composed solely of opinion - hence the repeated use of “should”, and no reference to the law.
However, legally, prisons have a duty of care to prisoners which includes preventing suicide. In the event of a future hunger strike, I would hope there would be a court ruling to determine what should happen. I would also hope that, if necessary, the law would be changed to allow them to be fed by whatever means necessary, but starting with the least invasive.
The big problem with Guantanamo, as regards force feeding, is they went straight to the most invasive method possible.
All that said, if force feeding is unacceptable, letting them die is the acceptable option. Giving into demands like that is no different to giving into terrorism.
Prisoners have a right to make requests, not demands. They sometimes what something that’s reasonable, sometimes something that’s unreasonable. They don’t, of course, “have a say in how prisons are run.”
Where in the world does the prison find an “obligation” for a prisoner to eat? If they wish to stop eating as a means to advocate for more TV time, or hotter showers, it’s their choice, IMO.
They will probably bring some attention to their issue, and the rest of us can then evaluate if we want to join their movement and–as a society–decide if want the prison officials to grant them more TV time or not. In my experience, most of us don’t really support whatever the hunger striker is trying to accomplish, and their requests fails to generate any real interest or support. They can then decide to start eating again or die for their ideals.
On the other hand, maybe their protesting something really outrageous, and their efforts to bring about reform generates widespread support. Didn’t the women imprisoned for trying to vote go on hunger stikes?
Right, as I thought. 
But in one way I agree- I feel that those nations that ban forcefeeding are no more wrong than the nations which allow it. Its a tough choice- to allow them to starve or force feed. Neither is better than the other, morally, they both have ethical issues.
However, even the UN agrees that forcefeeding isn’t torture. Mind you, yes, it can be applied in such a way it become torture, but so can many things that are part of the life of a prisoner.
In the end tho, you are correct- prisoners no longer have all their rights.
Why would I do the leg work to backup your statement…which started out saying everyone outside of the US, then narrowed down to western nations only, then, er, attempted to toss it on me to figure out what your assertion meant. How about this…show me a cite that shows the EU’s position on prisoner hunger strikes where prisoners are allowed to kill themselves through starvation. That would be good enough of a cite to backup your claim that ‘the rest of the civilised world’ (a.k.a. to you Europe) allowed prisoners to die rather than keeping them alive. If you can’t do that much (or can’t be bothered) I’ll take it as you are talking out of your ass and move on.
My spell check turns Steophan into Stephan.
Prison and detention centre rules are clear in the UK that so long as the person has capacity he cannot be force fed against his will. No British medic or nurse would be able to assist in any manner with force feeding as the GMC and UKCC have made it clear that that would be assault and unprofessional behaviour.
Similarly in hospital or community, a person of capacity cannot be forced to accept ANY medical intervention, no matter how life saving.
I happen to be a retired nurse with considerable mental health and forensic experience, including teaching medical ethics at tertiary level.
As I said, Steophan posts opinion, I post fact.
Here is an example of detained asylum seekers close to starving to death
As I said, I cannot cite easily an absence of force feeding. What is apparent is that in the first ten Google pages the only force feeding is from the USA. If you insist that many other nations allow forced feeding of prisoners, simply cite for it.
They certainly have a duty of care to their prisoners, and a duty to prevent suicides. I would fall on the side of saying that includes a duty to feed prisoners, even against their will, but I can also see the other side of that argument.
The answer to that would be to judge cases on their merits, and not to compare campaigning for women’s suffrage to campaigning for the right to watch more TV in prison. But the rightness of the cause doesn’t necessarily justify a particular method of campaigning.
I would also be loath to condemn any guards who force fed suffragettes, if that was legal at the time, simply because of the rightness of the cause.
A series of ECHR rulings on various cases
www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Hunger_strikes_detention_ENG.pdf
That is your opinion. It is not reflected in Common Law or European countries; only in the USA and Israel.
So? They’re wrong.
So? We’re talking about people in prison.
We are discussing ethics, a subject where it is almost entirely correct to say there can be no factual answers.
You are entitled to your opinion that it is unethical to force-feed anyone, but you can’t claim it as a fact. It would be more constructive if you explained why it is your opinion, rather than simply stating that it is some other people’s opinion as well.
I would argue that, by definition, someone voluntarily starving themself is not capable of rational thought, and so should be force-fed. I suspect you disagree.
I’m also fully in favour of compulsory treatment for some mental illnesses, and I say that knowing there’s a least a slight possibility it could apply to me.
Probably the most fundamental function of government is to protect the people. That should include, in at least some cases, protecting them from themselves.
In Europe it is a matter of law that prisoners retain all rights of normal residents save those removed by legal process.
The law covering force feeding is based on the common law offence of assault. Even in prison any unnecessary physical contact could be construed as assault as is the case in general. Being a prisoner does not allow anyone to use force without a legal excuse. Of course force can be used to subdue a violent prisoner or for self defence, but it may never be used on a prisoner with capacity to enforce any medical treatment against their will.
It’s not really necessary to follow up every post where I share my opinion with “that’s your opinion”, especially when the subject is purely one of opinion in the first place.
You will keep doing it! You may think they are wrong. In fact you disagree with them and your beliefs are contrary to the law.
You must stop confusing your beliefs with ‘truth’.
I don’t do so. In a context such as this, a discussion where there can only be opinion, it is not necessary to preface every statement with “my opinion is”. Indeed, among intelligent people capable of understanding context, it is never necessary.
So, care to respond to the rest of my post and actually explain *your * opinion that letting people die is more ethical than preventing that death, when it’s in your power to do so? Or are you just going to keep telling us it’s other people’s opinion as well?
Because your trick of repeatedly citing the same thing rather than actually discussing those cites is really fucking boring.
It would help if you would make it clear where you are talking about fact What the ethnically acceptable legal’ position is) and what your humble opinion is.
Many of your ideas are at major variance with the ethical framework of British and European Laws.
Ethics is not about just what you think, but about building a structure of moral behaviour that is coherent and defensible. This is done by starting from first principles rather than going on an immediate ‘gut’ reaction.
One of the main tenets of modern Democratic Liberal Society is the freedom of the individual to make their own decisions.
We have as a society decided that such rights may only be removed by rule of law.
One such right is the right, if comps mentis, to refuse medical treatment.
Another is that people are sent to prison AS punishment, not FOR punishment. They retain all human rights not necessarily removed to enable their incarceration.
Those two tenets together show why it is logically necessary that force feeding of competent adults is not moral and hence is illegal and judged as immoral.
Now if you happen to believe that the State owns the body or that prison should be a place to administer punishment, then your view might prevail, but it would be at odds with the ethical underpinning of our society.
One can’t incarcerate the dead. The prisoner being alive is necessary for their imprisonment.
It is perfectly coherent to consider suicide in prison as the equivalent of escaping prison, and to act accordingly.
There’s also the idea that any government has a duty of care to its people, and allowing them to die for lack of food or medicine breaches that duty. You are correct that there is also a duty to respect personal choice, but there are limits to that - when those choices would harm another person, they are not usually respected.
So, rather than citing law at me, explain why the duty of care is a weaker duty than that of respecting personal choice. Or, to put it another way, why the government should stop me harming another person, but not stop me harming myself. Both me and the other person, after all, are under the same governmental protection.