It’s YOUR assertion. I’m not asking you to prove a negative, I asked you to show me the policy that the EU has on allowing prisoners to die when they are on hunger strikes. Seems simple enough to me, though I’ll admit I can’t find anything on it when I do a Google search. Since it’s your assertion, though, I asked you to back up your assertion, and since you say you are unable to I’ll just leave it at that.
Because the right to control your own body is only over ridden when it would cause real damage to others in society. This argument is used in the Typhoid Mary Cases or detention under the Mental Health Act (although I disagree with several of the reasons for detention). It is also the rationale for imprisonment for public safety.
The damage must be direct, not consequential.
You cannot just build an ethical system from gut feeling- that way lies Daily Mail incomprehension of how the world works.
I have provided a lengthy PDF above detailing cases before the ECHR that outlines the development of European law on force feeding.
I cannot provide cites for the absence of force feeding as that does not get reported. What is reported repeatedly is US force feeding.
Which, strangely, is what happens when you are sent to prison.:rolleyes:
sigh I’m not asking you about force feeding. I’m asking you for a freaking policy that the EU (or, hell, how about individual ‘civilised’ countries…fucking ANYTHING) has for dealing with prisoners attempting to commit suicide and allowing same. Doesn’t even have to be about prisoners trying to commit suicide by starvation. Give me something…anything…that backs up your assertion that ‘civilised’ countries allow prisoners to kill themselves whenever and however they like. From there, perhaps we can extrapolate what the EU does with such prisoners wrt them being allowed to kill themselves when they go on hunger strikes. If you can show that they simply allow them to die, well, there you go…you will have proved your point AND given me what I asked for. If not, then perhaps we can figure out what they actually DO in those situations since it seems a binary solution set to me…either you allow them to die or you do something to ensure they don’t.
Or, you know, you can keep asserting stuff and maintain your smug superiority over all things America while backing up nothing you are asserting. I’m good either way as European superiority rolls off me like water off a duck. It is, after all, the default setting.
Is that your opinion, because it’s not factually true. In some cases it can be overridden when you are a danger to yourself. That’s one reason people can be Sectioned, for example.
Do you object to the detention of the mentally ill for their own safety? If not, then we’re arguing about when independence can be overridden, not whether.
I mean, it’s a fairly silly argument anyway, as prisoners don’t have full bodily autonomy anyway. They don’t have freedom of movement, may be subject to search, and so on.
Basically, I don’t agree that this is a matter of principle, it’s a matter of what degree of bodily autonomy we should deny prisoners. Prisoners don’t, and shouldn’t, keep all their “fundamental” rights - but neither should they be stripped of all of them.
As I have repeatedly stated, I am talking about people with capacity. People without capacity should have decisions made for them whether prisoners or not.
As a matter of European law prisoners retain all their rights save those necessarily removed to ensure punishment BY incarceration. This is at the root of the current stand off between Cameron and the ECHR.
I happen to disagree with the current mental health law in England. It allows detention and treatment on three grounds- risks to self, others or further deterioration. This is based purely on diagnosis.
I would prefer detention to only occur when capacity is affected rather than simple diagnosis.
I do not claim that the law is wrong or immoral, merely that there are potential areas where the law could be improved to meet basic axioms of morality.
It probably won’t surprise you to learn (if I’ve not already said) that I’m firmly on Cameron’s side when it comes to refusing prisoners the vote. My view is rather different to that of the European lawmakers. I believe that, by committing a crime worthy of incarceration, one has voluntarily set themself outside society, and is no longer entitled to the protections a member of it gets.
Which is not to say there should be no protections - of course, there should, but there is no reason they should be similar to those enjoyed by non-criminals.
As someone who suffers from (fortunately mild) mental illness, I would prefer that the protection exists, even if my illness means that I don’t want it. Expecting someone who’s seriously mentally ill to manage their own treatment strikes me as far more cruel than forcibly treating them on occasion. Also, temporary detention when there’s a real risk of harm to self or others, pending evaluation of that risk, seems a reasonable trade off to me. Again, I’m speaking here as someone this could potentially happen to - and indeed nearly did once many years ago. I suspect that, had I not voluntarily agreed to enter the psych ward, I’d have been sectioned.
Certainly, it’s an issue of freedom. But if you’re dead, you have no freedom. So, I would maintain that saving someone’s life should be the default position, and should need a fairly strong reason to move away from it - stronger than simply “they want to die/they don’t want feeding or treatment”. Where the line lies is an extremely difficult question. Most of my experience and discussion about the issue has been related to geriatric or terminal care, and at what point what level of support should be withdrawn, or drugs with lethal side effects be introduced. The patients wishes are important, but by no means the only concern.
No, it’s not. The unpleasantness of a prison stay is only a means to an end, and that end is that less crimes will be committed. Escaping from prison means evading this method intended to reduce criminal activity; death has the opposite effect.
The irony eludes you, doesn’t it?
And back when IRA prisoners were systematically starving themselves to death Americans thought it was appalling the UK did absolutely nothing to prevent their suicides. It was seen a cruel, unethical, and savage on this side of the pond.
So… what’s your point? The US and Europe have different values? Is that news?
Personally, I’m not sure where I come down on this. While I value autonomy I also value a lot of other things, like life, suicide prevention, and, yes, the good opinion of others.
I find it odd that Europe has largely dispensed with the death penalty but lets prisoners starve themselves to death, but in the US the state still kills people but won’t permit them to commit suicide by lack of eating.
I’m sure your media coverage neglects to mention that only SOME US states have the death penalty, not all of them, and more and more are abolishing it (like Illinois recently did). Even some that have capital punishment on the books haven’t used it in decades. But hey, you don’t need subtly when discussing 'Muricans, right?
Many people would disagree, and consider that prison is supposed to be a punishment for a transgression, among other things. Those other things including rehabilitation, crime reduction, and simply keeping certain people out of the way.
As well, allowing people to become martyrs to an illegal cause could well increase, not decrease, overall crime.
I have VERY mixed feelings on this issue. I’ve read the autobiography of Delores Price, Irish Provisional IRA member & co-conspirator in the bombing of Old Bailey. She was originally sentenced to life in prison (but ultimately only served 7 years) and went on a hunger strike shortly after going to prison. She described the horror, pain, humiliation & brutality of being force fed (she even made herself vomit after the force feedings, only to be re-fed her own vomit through the esophageal tube they forced down her throat. After reading of her experience, I was totally against force feeding & thought it thoroughly inhumane……
But after all, she survived, was released from prison, married actor Stephen Rea & produced several children----none of which would have happened if the prison had allowed her to starve to death.
So I haven’t a clue where I stand on this issue, but it’s a fascinating ethical topic imo.
Read carefully what I post. I point out facts such as the fact that only the USA seems to carry out this procedure currently in the Civilised world (similar to their exceptionality on judicial killing.) Those are facts . My opinions about them are stated separately. I think the actions are barbaric and inhumane.
No-one on the other side has actually addressed the pain and distress that force feeding leads to; I have posted a video of this being performed and details of the manual allowing it In Guantanamo. Anyone watching the video would be offended in the same manner that we are offended by the burning to death or decapitation of ISIS hostages. They are barbaric acts carried out by the powerful to cause harm and distress to individuals and those who care for them.
Agreed. I opposed that then. It is not the US and Europe, it is the US and every other country (almost) that the US would choose to identify itself with.
The apparent anomaly is to do with views about the autonomy of the individual. The US does allow people to starve themselves to death. It just uses force feeding as an additional punishment for prisoners.
Cite?
Because I’m not aware of this “allowing” you refer to. In the US people who attempt to starve themselves to death, like anorexics, can be locked up and medical treatment imposed against their wishes because starving oneself to death is seen as mental illness which renders someone incompetent to make decisions. Rather like someone who attempts suicide has medical treatment imposed despite their express wish to die.
You see self-starvation as an expression of autonomy. The US system sees it as a sign of mental illness and incompetence.
Deciding to starve oneself is not necessarily a mental illness. Check DSM IV (R) which does not specify that alone as mental disorder.
In order to be diagnosed as a mental disorder it would be necessary to either prove that the person lacked capacity or was doing it as a result of a diagnosable mental illness elsewhere in DSM IV (R).
If a citizen engaged in a hunger strike for political reasons which were rational and not the result of illness or lack of capacity, I cannot see them being prevented from carrying out that political action. No medical practitioner would carry out a medical intervention without patient compliance unless it was accompanied by a legal finding of mental disorder or lack of capacity.
Perhaps you can provide evidence of a politically motivated hunger strike being met with force feeding in the community without a diagnosis of mental disorder or lack of capacity.
A cite was requested
César Chávez 1968