Appropriate Responses to Prisoner Hunger Strike

Appropriate Responses to prisoner thirst StrikeIm prisonment and gentle recompensesDiscuss the appropriate response to a captive who goes on smart require. Is it ever confirm to hurtle feed a captive who responds to eat?Hunger strike is a dilemma for prison authorities. It is kindred two sides of a coin, they have to make a choice, to save the smell of the prisoners or to let them rifle. Prisoners thirstiness strike has been conducted for years in many parts of the world aimed to reach certain goals, solidarity, political fight back and to express opinions. States have the responsibilities to maintain prison security while at the alike time pre military service the wellness and well-being of prisoners on thirstiness strike.The relevant legal framework on conjure up responsibility in the telephone number of aridness strike and cart alimentation is the European Convention on charitable Rights, hold 2 on the Right to Life and Article 3 prohibition of torture, and for the United Kingdom merciful Rights Act 1998 under the same articles. Other related to provision would be Article 8 on the recompense to private deportment (ECHR).The duty of the prison authorities to preserve prisoners health and life, including conducting force administering diet best described inLeigh v Gladstone(1909). During that period of time the Home depositary had the duty and the power to prevent prison suicide including force- nutrition prisoners who went on crave strike. Suicide, abetting and aiding of suicide was considered a criminal act. maestro Alverstone CJ states that it was the duty of prison officials to preserve the health of prisoners in their shackles and that duty extended to force feeding In this expression Article 2 prevails under the condition that suicide is an act of crime. In the national of R. , S. , A. and C v. Portugal, the European Commission on Human Rights found that it was certainly disturbing that such(prenominal) on time could h ave elapsed without the applicants being put under medical supervisionThere is a fine line to distinguish hunger strike from suicide, and it is not an easy task. Most philosophers argue that suicide can be accomplished by passive means, such as refusal to eat As hunger strike could wizard to the possibility of expiration, it is still a question whether it is an act of suicide or ba believe an exercise of serious of self determination. John Williamss hunger strike categorizations whitethorn instal a shed light on description on the creator and the type of hunger striker.However, he also realizes that placing a prisoner inwardly one of the categories is difficult particularly in analysing the situation when death is a possibility, although not an objective and death is the desired objective. Thus Annas observes that the courts have concluded that a refusal of preaching that inevitably leads to death is not a suicide.The virtually important example is the 1981 Irish hunger s trike where it was carried out to achieve certain objectives and realizing that the response could lead to death. It was clear that the objective of the Irish hunger strikers was to get the political status which they desire, and the primary motive is not suicide.Dolores Dooley-Clarke dismantleed out an interesting question, if death resulted from prisoner political protest, could it be a suicide or murder? She elaborates that none of the above fits hunger strike categorisation. In the graphic symbol of Irish hunger strike and otherwise similar prisoner political protest, Dolores Dooley-Clarke suggests that the capacity to plan a hunger strike and state ones intention () is not characteristics of all suicide attempts-some suicides depend on impulse or diminished sense of the full implications of the act. Thus, many psychiatrists support the statement that suicide does not fits to the categorisation of hunger strike. Robert Daly, professor of psychiatry at University College, C ork, believes that nothing is achieved or clarified by simply equating hunger strikers with attempted suicides related to schizophrenia or chronic drug addiction. In line with the above statement, British Medical connection states that a hunger strike lead to death cannot be regarded as suicide.Thus, it is tricky to implement the typeset treatment to the prisoner who goes on hunger strike where motive could be deceitful. As Annas elaborates, motivation is the most crucial distinction between affected roles who refuse treatment and prisoners who refuse to eat. Because the latter generally seek all to manipulate the prison system for their own benefit or to pull out suicide. If the motive is solely to die due to there is no other alternative method of suicide other than starving himself to death, than the self-destructive motive is clear. If that is the lawsuit, the prison authorities have the power to intervene and save ones life. This responsibility to prevent prisoner suicide s was considered by the House of Lords, in the words of Lord Hope The duty of those who are entrusted with his custody is to recede reasonable like for his safety while he remains in their hands.If it is known that he whitethorn pack in self mutilation or suicide while he is in their custody, their duty is to pick up reasonable care to prevent him from engaging in these acts so that he remains free from distress until he is set at liberty. This duty is owed to the prisoner if there is at assay, irrespective of whether he is genially disordered or of sound take care. It arises simply from the act that he is being detained by them in custody and is known to be at risk of engaging in self-mutilation or of committing suicide. However, it became a complicated issue since most of hunger strikers have a specific objective, to protest or to change policy and posit their request to be heard or fulfilled by the competent authorities.Prison authorities rely on doctor or medical officer to decide whether the prisoners should be fed artificially, on the other hand, doctors have certain medical ethics not to force-feed them and must respect prisoners autonomy and chastise to accept or refuse medical care. World Medical Association Malta proclamation declared that force-feeding is a form of inhuman and degrading treatment.Article 5 of the 1975 World Medical Association Tokyo Declaration states that doctors must not undertake force-feeding under any circumstances Where a prisoner refuses nourishment and is considered by the physician as capable of forming an unimpaired and rational plan concerning the consequences of such a voluntary refusal of nourishment, he or she shall not be fed artificially. The decision as to the capacity of the prisoner to form such a judgment should be confirmed by at least one other item-by-item physician. The consequences of the refusal of nourishment shall be explained by the physician to the prisoner. Prisoners right to be informed o n the risk that may cause from such treatment is protected by Article 8 ECHR.Force-feeding likely to be seen as inhuman degrading and amount to torture due to the painful method carried out in its procedures. During the classical civil war force-feeding caused horror and led the prisoners to stop the hunger strike, not only it is terrifying besides it could also result to death. In recent case, the horrific image of force-feeding again could be seen on the hunger striker prisoners in Guantanamo Bay.As honorrence Altman express, force-feeding is likely to involve dragging the prisoners to the site of feeding, and using physical restraints to move over the removal of the feeding tube. Placing the tube may also be tricky and could result in pitch-dark complications should it enter the trachea Taking into account the high stakes place into the shoulder of the medical officer, their respectable integrity must also be protected. The relation between prisoner hunger striker patient and the medical authorities thus become complicated.State has the obligations to preserve ones life and to prevent suicide, and at the same time to respect absolute right of freedom from torture. In the case ofNevmerzhitsky v Ukraine, it was held that there had been a violation to Article 3 of ECHR, the force feeding of the applicant, without any medical justification (. ), constituted treatment of such a severe character warranting the characterizations of torture. The medical indispensability of force-feeding emphasized in this case.Looking into the vox populi, it seems that force-feeding thusly can be confirm in certain way. The term medical necessity amounted to a way for the prison authorities to place the burden on the medical officers to make the decision. This could be portrayed in the response of Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins (1975) in the case of force-feeding against Ian Brady The responsible medical officer has decided, on the basis of his pass linchpin judgment th at Ian Brady should be fed artificially. () I could not interpose myself between the clinical judgment of a doctor and his patient. The court found that there has been no violation to Article 3 of ECHR in the case ofA v Germany. InA v Germany, the commission underlined that force-feeding is even obligatory if an obvious peril for the individuals life exist. Given the obligations of states parties to secure the right to life under Article 2 of ECHR, the commission justified the act of force-feeding.Personal mentality of the hunger striker thus become a focal point for doctors and physician to determine whether the person has the mental capability to make his own judgment and decision to hopefully end his actions in a reasonable time. InHerczegfalvy v Austria, force feeding of a prisoner was justified on the basis of therapeutic and medical necessity.Mr Herczegfalvy was diagnosed suffering from paranoiaquerulans, in the view of medical judgement he was incapable to make the decision for himself. Regardless his refusal to consent any medical treatment and examen that would be conducted upon him, the court on the above circumstances found no violations to Article 3 of ECHR against force administering food. Article 3 on prohibition on torture and Article 2 on the right to life (ECHR) conflicted with one another in this matter.In the case of hunger strike, medical treatment plays a key role, it has dilemmas when the treatment contrary to the patients wish, no consent given from the patient, and how far is such treatment could be amounted to violate one person dignity thus subject to inhuman, degrading treatment, and torture. Doctors have freedom to engage clinical judgment to its patients, however as Dolores pointed out, it becomes a dilemma as the freedom of clinical judgment is a two-edged sword the ethical beliefs of the doctor may conflict with a prisoners patient expressed wishes not to be treated. Prison authorities and medical officers must in any way appro ach the hunger striker and inform them on the risk for pursuing hunger strike or the risk on force-feeding, here the right to respect the private life (Article 8) should be clearly engaged in situations concerning disclosure of information that will enable individuals to make decisions that may have an impact on their health.In 1981 Irish hunger strike, the British Government decided not to force-feed the hunger striker. Margaret Thatcher refused to give any concessions and stated We are not prepared to consider special category status for certain groups of people serving sentences for crime. Crime is crime is crime, it is not political. 10 hunger strikers died to defend their five demands.InRobb v Secretary of State for the Home Department, the wish of the hunger striker, who had a sound of mind and the capacity to understand the risk and the consequences of his decisions, to refuse the medical treatment should be esteem. J Thorpe stated The first principle is that every persons luggage compartment is inviolate and proof against any form of physical molestation. () Secondly, the principle of self-determination requires that respect must be given to the wishes of the patient.So that if an adult of sound mind refuses, however unreasonably, to consent to treatment or care by which his life would or might be prolonged the doctors responsible for his care must give effect to his wishes even though they do not consider it to be in his interest to do so. In contras toLeigh v Gladstone(1909) case, inRobbcase the secretary of state was granted the declarations that medical and prison mental faculty could lawfully abstain from their responsibility from taking force artificial food or prolonging the life of the patient in the basis of the patients refusal to the medical treatment. Here, Andrew Grubb suggested that in view of the above resulted to the decision inRobbcase that theres no obligation for the prison authorities to intervene.State has the interest in prev enting suicide and preservation of life. InAiredale NHS Trust v Blandrefusal of a medical treatment is not a suicide or aiding a suicide. Sir Thomas Bingham M.R pointed out when the patient was adult and of sound mind, a doctor discontinues artificial feeding after three years and the patient dies. Has the doctor aided and abetted suicide? I think the assist plainly is that he has not. InReW, the prisoner patient concern with a sound mind has the mental capacity to make decisions on his behalf and consequently his refusal to medical treatment will be respected even if it would lead to his death. As elaborated in the above cases, it was found that the right of an individual to refuse treatment strongly outweighs the interest in the preservation of life.Similar to the above cases, in the United States, overbearing Court of California in the case ofThor v Superior Courtheld that a competent patient (prisoner) has the right to accept or to refuse medical treatment even at the risk o f death. Here, the right to exercise self-determination prevails in a condition of a competent patient. In R. v.Collins and Ashworth Hospital ascendancy ex p. Brady, Brady argues that the force-feeding was unlawful taking into account that he is mentally competent. As mentioned on the above case laws, a competent prisoner cannot lawfully be force-fed. However, in Bradys case, the hospital experts observation on his mental incapacity justified the lawfulness of the force-feeding conducted upon him.Personal motivation, mental capacity, and the consent of the prisoner hunger strikers is the main points that would be taking into account for the prison authorities and the medical staff to make their decision. Force-feeding of the prisoner who goes on hunger strike should be carried out in accordance to the points above. Motivation and sound of mind of the hunger striker determine the objective of such actions to differentiate it from suicide.As inRobbcase, the prison authorities and med ical staff are avoid from unlawful act for being abstain of conducting a medical treatment in the basis of refusal of prisoner with a sound mind. While inBradys case, force-feeding was conducted in concern of the prisoners motivation to commit suicide by starving himself to death. In regards to the patients with a sound of mind, the right of self determination prevails, and therefore to administer food in force is not justified. However, in certain cases such as Bradys, force-feeding is justified in the basis of preserving ones life.In view of prohibition of torture, it is clear that force-feeding is so horrific thus lead to inhuman and degrading treatment, therefore prison authorities and medical officers should inform the hunger striker patients on the risk of such action. Article 2 on the right to life would only prevails Article 3 on prohibition of torture if theres a definite reason on the basis of medical necessity and the inability of the patients to make a decision for them. In regards of cases where death is the primary objective, such asBradys, preserving ones life comes first before self determination. The prisoners right to refuse any medical treatment or force-feeding should be respected, nevertheless it should be noted that medical necessity and mental incapacity would play a key role on making the decision to outweigh that right.BibliographyGudmundur Alfredson and Katarina Tomaevski (eds),A Thematic Guide To Documents on wellness and Human Rights(The Hague Martinus Nijhoff Publishers) (1998)Human Rights Watch, Prison Conditions in the Soviet Union A Report of Facilities in Russia and Azerbaidzhan (New York Human Rights Watch) (1991)Kieran McEvoy, Paramilitary Imprisonment in Northern Ireland Resistance, Management, and Release (New York Oxford University Press) (2004)Human Rights Watch, Africa Watch Prison Project,Prison Conditions in South Africa(New York Human Rights Watch) (1994)Fran Lisa Buntman,Robben Island and Prisoner Resistance to Apart heid(Cambridge Cambridge University Press) (2003)John Wadham, Helen Mountfield, and Anna Edmundson,Blackstones Guide to The Human Rights Act 1998(Oxford Oxford University Press) (2003), p. 49.Barbara Harvey and John Marston,Cases and gossip on Tort (4thEdition)(Essex Pearson Education Limited) (2000)European Convention on Human Rights and its Five Protocols, available at http//www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.htmlC.Art8As cited inR v Secretary of State for the Home Department v Robb1995 1 All ER 677, available at http//www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/results/pubTreeViewDoc.do?nodeId=TAANAAEACEpubTreeWidth=23%Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in cooperation with the International Bar Association,Professional Training Series No, 9 Human Rights in the Administration of rightness A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers(New York United Nations Publications) (2003), p. 345Norman L. Cantor George C. Thomas,The Legal Bounds of mendelevium Conduct Hastening Death i n the USA, in Yoram Distein (eds), Israel Yearbook on Human Rights (The Hague Martinus Nijhoff Publishers) (2000)John Williams, Hunger-Strikes A Prisoners Right or a Wicked Folly,The Howard Journalvol. 40 no. 3 (2001)George J. Annas, Law and the Life Sciences Prison Hunger Strikes Why the Motive Matters,The Hastings Center Reportvol.12 no. 6 (1982), p.21-22.Dolores Dooley-Clarke, Medical ethics and political Protest,The Hastings Centre Reportvol. 11 no.6 (1981)British Medical Association, Medicine Betrayed The Participation of Doctors in Human Rights Abuses (London Zed Books) (1998)George J. Annas, Loc. citBritish Medical Association, Loc. citWorld Medical Association Declaration on Hunger Strikes (1991) (1992) (2006), Article 21, available at http//www.wma.net/e/policy/h31.htmThe World Medical Association Declaration of Tokyo, Guidelines for Physicians Concerning harassment and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in Relation to postponement and Imprisonment (1975), Article 5, available at http//www.wma.net/e/policy/c18.htmPolymeris Voglis,Becoming a Subject Political Prisoners during the Greek Civil War(New York Berghahn Books) (2002), p. 193.David Rose,Scandal of force-fed prisoners,The Observer, January 8, 2006, available at http//www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/08/usa.guantanamoLawrence Altman as cited by George J. Annas, Law and the Life Sciences Prison Hunger Strikes Why the Motive Matters,The Hastings Center Reportvol.12 no. 6 (1982), p.22Nevmerzhitsky v Ukraine, available at http//www.westlaw.co.ukJenkins, as cited by John Williams, op. cit, p.285A v Germany,available at http//www.westlaw.co.ukIbid.Herczegfalvy v Austria,available at http//www.westlaw.co.ukDolores Dooley Clarke, op. cit, p.7Jane Wright,Tort Law and Human Rights(Oregon Hart Publishing) (2001), p. 66http//www.inac.orgR v Secretary of State for the Home Department v Robb, op. citIbid. see http//medlaw.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/3/2/189.pdfAs cited in Rosamun d Scott,Rights, Duties and the Body Law and Ethics of the Maternal-Fetal Conflict(Portland Oregon Hart Publishing) (2002), p. 136