“Under the law of every state in the United States, competent adults have the right to refuse medical treatment and that right has generally been construed to include a right to refuse food and water. …in the 1990 case of Cruzan v. Dir., Missouri Dep’t of Health, the Supreme Court assumed that a competent adult does have the right to refuse food and water.”
The default assumption in the US is going to be “that person is crazy”.
Now, there have been hunger strikes as political protests, but it’s also been often clear that the person had no intention of carrying it through to death.
I think you’re mistaking the letter of the law for what actually happens in the real world.
Right… which is why the hunger-striking suffragettes were allowed to die - oh, wait, they weren’t.
Untrue. Otherwise when a person is found unconscious they’d be allowed to die rather than being treated. In the US the default assumption is that medical treatment is desired. It was only recently the the law was changed to allow people like EMTs to respect Do Not Resuscitate orders carried by people, prior to that law change they had to give treatment despite a legal document stating the person did not want it.
I don’t think you understand just how weighted the US culture is towards “intervene to prevent death”.
Your cite does not say what you claim it does:
-
lower courts have rendered different decisions on the matter and the Supreme court has never heard a case on the topic, so it’s a roll of the dice if your case goes before a judge.
-
Cruzon involved a woman who had been declared NOT competent.
Please provide a cite that actually supports your position.
Fact is, though, that as soon as hunger striking endangers someone health someone else is going to argue that person isn’t competent and should be force-fed.
Now, if you want to argue the method of force feeding is cruel and inhumane I think you’ll have more traction, but as hard as it might be for you to comprehend there are people who think that failing to save a life by force-feeding is the ethical violation.
Bullshit. And it will still be bullshit regardless of how many times you repeat it.
Forced feeding is not a form of punishment. If it were a form of punishment then it could be generally invoked against any prisoner for disciplinary reasons. And it isn’t.
Forced feeding is a health procedure. It’s used to prevent a prisoner from harming himself by not eating. It’s only used as a last resort when no other means of feeding works and there is an immediate threat to the prisoner’s health.
Here in the United States, we regard protecting the lives and health of prisoners as being important. Apparently in Europe, they do not have this same regard for prisoners and are willing to let prisoners die. I know which position I consider the more moral one. Maybe Europeans should consider following the American example on this issue.
I almost got in trouble over this myself one time. I preformed CPR on a “non-responsive” prisoner (and by non-responsive, I mean he had just died) and then found out the next day that he had filed a DNR order. Fortunately in my case, it was determined that I didn’t have access to his medical records (and as non-medical staff I wasn’t supposed to) so I was covered for the fact I hadn’t known about the DNR.
There is a big difference between an assumption of ‘crazy’ by the general public and the possibility of a psychiatrist finding that someone is suffering from a mental illness of such severity that they should be force fed.
Nobody tried to force feed César Chávez in 1968.
And they burned witches.
We are talking about recent practice.
The assumption is that an unconscious person would be deemed to have given consent for life saving treatment.
We are not talking a out unconscious people here, they are fully conscious and resistant when being force fed.
Chavez wasn’t in prison in 1968.
If he had been, and the prison had allowed him to starve to death, would you be happy with that outcome?
Please read with care. In reaching its decision they drew on the assumption in law about consent
“…in the 1990 case of Cruzan v. Dir., Missouri Dep’t of Health, the Supreme Court assumed that a competent adult does have the right to refuse food and water.”
So in considering the case before them of an incompetent (through unconsciousness) patient, they started from the presumption that a competent person had the right to refuse food and water, and then went on to consider what the case was for a person who was unconscious.
But they stated clearly in their preliminary arguments that US law recognises the right of competent adults to refuse food and water.
César Chávez 1968
Yes, if that was his desire and he was competent.
I suspect that a fully competent intelligent adult might find it torture to be five point restrained with leather straps, held by several personnel and his head locked to allow a larger than normal tube lubricated with olive oil (skilled nurses and doctors can use smaller diameter tubes without the need for infection inducing oil.) Food is then passed and if that is regurgitated, it is collected from the clothes and floor and passed through the tube again.
If it quacks like a duck…
I suspect that a fully competent intelligent adult might find it torture to be *starved to death. * I also suspect that a fully competent intelligent adult might find it torture to be locked in a cell for life.
But that boat has sailed dude, the highest court in the world has ruled that it is NOT torture.
It may be *unethical *(but so is letting people starve themselves to death) and it may be *illegal in some nations (but so is suicide) but it isnt torture. *
Some ethical conundrums are just that- there is no “right” answer. Insisting that you possess the “right, one, true, way” is a bit much.
You misinterpret a rather strange and non binding decision by a very low part of the International Court of Justice.
Most civilised countries treat it as torture.
No civilised country treats humane detention as torture.
No civilised country treats suicide voluntarily chosen as torture.
You are bending words to suit your arguments.
Watch the video and then discuss whether it looks like torture.
“For decades, the international community, including the International Red Cross, the World Medical Association and the United Nations, have recognized the right of prisoners of sound mind to go on a hunger strike. Force-feeding has been labeled a violation on the ban of cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. The World Medical Association holds that it is unethical for a doctor to participate in force-feeding. Put simply, force-feeding violates international law.”
“The United Nations Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights released a statement in early May calling the continued detention in Guantánamo a “flagrant violation of international human rights law” and categorizing the force-feeding at the prison as “cruel, inhuman and degrading.” Dr. Steven Miles, a professor of medicine and bioethics at the University of Minnesota, who has done a great deal of research into the practice of force-feeding, said: “The persistence of the military’s force-feeding policy in the face of international law, and the manner in which it is done, constitutes torture.””
"Force-feeding hunger strikers is a breach of international law, the UN’s human rights office said Wednesday, as US authorities tried to stem a protest by inmates at the controversial Guantanamo Bay jail.
“If it’s perceived as torture or inhuman treatment – and it’s the case, it’s painful – then it is prohibited by international law,” Rupert Coville, spokesman for the UN high commissioner for human rights, told AFP."
Comment on the position in Israel where the Knesset is considering legalising force feeding
Yes, the World Medical Association holds that it is unethical for a doctor to participate in force-feeding, that doesnt say it’s torture.