Dept. of Corr. can order force-feeding of prisoners, WA Supreme Court rules

[TechBear_Seattle]

Lede of the ruling:

Charles R. McNabb seeks review of a published Court of Appeals decision affirming summary judgment in favor of the Department of Corrections (DOC). McNabb sued DOC and Joseph D. Lehman, secretary of DOC, in his official capacity (hereinafter collectively DOC), seeking to have DOC's force-feeding policy declared unconstitutional, illegal, and invalid as applied to him and to enjoin DOC from enforcing the policy. McNabb argues that he has a right to refuse McNabb v. Dep't of Corrs., No. 77359-9 artificial means of nutrition and hydration arising independently from the explicit privacy guaranty in article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution1 and from his common law right to refuse medical treatment. He also argues the State may infringe that right only if it has a narrowly drawn compelling interest.

We conclude that an independent state constitutional analysis of the right to refuse artificial means of nutrition and hydration is warranted under article I, section 7. We also conclude that the State's interests in applying DOC's force-feeding policy to McNabb outweigh his right to refuse artificial means of nutrition and hydration.

Background: McNabb burned his house down with the intention of collecting the insurance. His act of arson badly injured his step-daughter. On February 4, 2004, after his conviction but before his sentencing, he began a hunger strike, saying that he could not live with the remorse of what he had done to the 16 year old girl. When the sentence was handed down and he was remanded to the custody of the state Department of Corrections, the now 80 pound man was wheeled in to a state hospital and force-fed through a feeding tube. McNabb sued on the grounds that the state violated a right to privacy guaranteed by the state constitution by failing to follow due process ("No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law") and that the DoC had forced a medical procedure on him against his will, in violation of decades of court rulings.

The ruling can be read in its entirety at http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=773599MAJ

More background information can be read at http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002297397_fast03m.html

[nels25]

1. Not real sure that the state

should be a part in any way shape or form to assisted suicide.

Since that is what the result would have been.:shrug:

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. But does the state have a right to intercede? That is the question

I agree that the state should not assist someone in McNabb's situation and frame of mind. But that was never the question before the courts.

[nels25]

4. You got me on that one

smarter people than me need to make that call.

[Q3JR4]

3. I would agree with McNabb's argument that

collectively Americans have the right to waive medical intervention; even lifesaving medical intervention. The Xian Scientists do it all the time and whenever anyone bats an eye their constitutional rights in that regard get upheld. (Maybe McNabb should convert?)

Second, and more importantly, in a free society do you or do you not have control over your own body? That in my mind is the question that cuts to the heart of arguments against assisted (and not-so-assisted) suicide.

Q3JR4.