Advertising

The Seattle Times Company

NWjobs | NWautos | NWhomes | NWsource | Free Classifieds | seattletimes.com

Politics & Government


Our network sites seattletimes.com | Advanced

Postman on Politics

Chief political reporter David Postman explores state, regional and national politics.

E-mail| About the blog | From the archive| RSS feeds Subscribe | Blog Home

April 10, 2008 9:06 AM

Court says state can force-feed inmates

Posted by David Postman

A state Supreme Court deeply divided over the Washington Constitution’s right to privacy ruled this morning that prison officials can force-feed inmates who refuse to eat or drink.

The court was ruling on an appeal filed by Charles R. McNabb who was force-fed at the Airway Heights Corrections Center near Spokane in 2004. He had not eaten voluntarily for more than five months before that while in the Spokane County Jail. But at Airway Heights, prison staff force-fed him through a tube in his nose for several days. After that, McNabb resumed eating voluntarily.

McNabb sued the state, saying it was his right to refuse nutrition and to let his fast “to take its course.”

The Department of Corrections argued that it had compelling reasons to force food and nutrition to keep McNabb alive.

The lead opinion, upholding a Court of Appeals decision, was written by Justice Mary Fairhurst and signed by justices Susan Owens, James Johnson and Bobbe Bridge, acting as a pro-tem.

Fairhurst wrote that the state constitution’s privacy provisions in Article I section 7 does give someone the right to refuse force-feeding. But in McNabb’s case, the state’s interest in keeping him alive “outweigh his right to refuse artificial means of nutrition and hydration.”

In the words of McNabb, "'[m]y only wish is for my personal decision not to eat to be respected and to be left in peace for my fast to take its course.'" Br. of Appellant at 2 (quoting CP at 7). Therefore, death resulting from McNabb's refusal of artificial means of nutrition and hydration will consummate his intent to die. Under these circumstances, the State has a compelling interest in preventing McNabb's intentional death. …


We find that McNabb has a limited right of privacy as an incarcerated individual but the State's interests in orderly administration of the prison system, preservation of life, prevention of suicide, and maintenance of the ethical integrity of the medical profession outweigh McNabb's limited right.

Justice Barbara Madsen wrote a concurrence saying agreeing with the result of the lead opinion but disagreeing with the balancing test Fairhurst spelled out.

Prisoners who are otherwise healthy have no right to refuse artificial means of nutrition and hydration in an effort to end their lives.


The extraordinary intervention in this case was initiated only when medical staff issued a written determination that McNabb's health was threatened. McNabb has no right to starve himself to death by refusing sustenance while in the custody of the State -- this is not a privacy right that citizens of the state hold or expect to hold.

The concurrence was also signed by Chief Justice Gerry Alexander and justices Charles Johnson and Tom Chambers.

Justice Richard Sanders dissented, saying that McNabb had the right to refuse nutrition. He says force-feeding is a “practice tantamount to torture.”

The lead opinion incorrectly frames the privacy interest at stake as the right to suicide. This case is no more about the right to suicide than Lawrence v. Texas, … was about the right to sodomy. Rather, this case is about "the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men," namely, "the right to be let alone."

Even more disturbing than the lead opinion's "balancing" of our privacy right against some majoritarian government bias is the concurrence's conditioning our right to privacy on the existence of a terminal illness. Concurrence at 1. The right to bodily integrity, the inner sanctum of all that is "private," is absolute under our state constitution; there is no basis to conclude terminally ill people have any superior right to bodily integrity than nonterminally ill people. The concurrence's notion to this effect is abhorrent to our tradition of equality. …

By extension, does this mean the State could force a woman with a life-threatening pregnancy to submit to an abortion? Or could the State force an inmate who contracted lung cancer after years of smoking to undergo chemotherapy? Technically, both of these "conditions" were "set in motion" by the individual. And yet, forcing an abortion or cancer treatment upon an inmate is unthinkable to most. Likewise, since the State's interest in preventing suicide is based on theological doctrine, its constitutional validity is questionable.

Digg Digg | Newsvine Newsvine

Submit a comment

*Required Field



Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Posted by Hinton

10:16 AM, Apr 10, 2008

"The right to bodily integrity, the inner sanctum of all that is "private," is absolute under our state constitution."

"Absolute?"

Tell that to those arrested for DUI who must submit blood samples. Or those who must provide DNA for either civil or criminal cases.

While I'm not wild about it, I agree with the decision.

Some would say, "let him kill himself, it's cheaper than keeping him locked up." While true, "cheaper" shouldn't necessarily be the main thrust of our penal system.

Nevertheless, this guy may feel free to off himself the moment he completes his sentence and provides restitution to his victim(s). While I haven't read all of Justice Sander's position on this, I would venture to say that requiring this inmate to meet all of the conditions of the requirements for repaying society for his crime(s) needs to be a part of the discussion.

There is something to the concept of a criminal's "debt to society." Under this circumstance,that debt is not discharged... and his freedom to starve himself to death to avoid that debt should not be assigned as part of the prison's responsibilities.

What's next... a prison self-starvation wing?

Posted by evergreen_representative

8:43 PM, Apr 11, 2008

I agree with the dissent of Justice Richard Sanders. The state has no business forcing prisoners to eat if they are mentally competent and do not want to. No more business than forcing any mentally competent person who is not in prison. At the same time, the P.O.C. will oppose the assisted suicide initiative that has been gathering signatures as of late, there is a difference between passive and pro-active suicide that has the imprimatur of official sanction. The state should not be promoting suicide under any circumstances, but should respect the personal dignity of all persons whatever a particular person's philosophical perspective on suicide may be.

Recent entries

Apr 11, 08 - 05:37 PM
Washington Dems unsure of Colombia trade deal

Apr 11, 08 - 01:34 PM
Sonics fans take over Gregoire rally

Apr 11, 08 - 12:41 PM
Dave Ammons to leave AP

Apr 10, 08 - 11:03 AM
D.C. eyes Murray as Byrd ails

Apr 10, 08 - 09:06 AM
Court says state can force-feed inmates

Advertising

Marketplace

Advertising

Advertising

Categories
Calendar

April

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      
Browse the archives

April 2008

March 2008

February 2008

January 2008

December 2007

November 2007

Advertising

Buy a link here