NCJ Number
93773
Journal
New England Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement Volume: 10 Issue: 1 Dated: (Winter 1984) Pages: 169-192
Date Published
1984
Length
24 pages
Annotation
This paper considers how Great Britain and West Germany have dealt with hunger-striking inmates, the state's interest in preserving life and the competent person's right to refuse life-sustaining treatment, relevant case law, and the recommended policies for Federal prisons in contrast to the case-by-case approach used by the States.
Abstract
The British have legislated two ways for prisons to handle hunger strikers. One is to put decisionmaking responsibility on the shoulders of the prison medical officer. The hunger striker would be admitted to the prison hospital and treated as a patient. The second approach is to require prisons to temporarily release hunger strikers and reincarcerate them when they recover. In 1974, the Home Secretary proposed a new method to deal with the problem. The medical officer would determine whether the prisoner was capable of making a rational decision. In West Germany, force-feeding of hunger strikers is performed only if the prisoner's life is in grave danger. In the United States, very few cases dealing with this issue have reached the appellate courts. In 1979, the Massachusetts courts were faced with whether to allow an inmate to refuse life-sustaining treatment as a form of protest. The court held that the State's failure to prevent the inmate's death would present a serious threat to prison order and security. In 1982 the State of New York was called upon to weigh the interests of a hunger-striking inmate. The court concluded that the State's interest in the prevention of suicide and in the orderly administration of its prisons required force-feeding. The State of Georgia, however, ruled in Zant v. Prevatte that the State does not have to force a sane prisoner to receive treatment. The Federal Government has promulgated regulations governing hunger strikes in Federal prisons. These regulations leave the decisionmaking to the prison medical officials, who determines when force-feeding shall begin. The problem still remains as to who should make the decision as to which refusals are considered a form of disobedience and which would be upheld under a right of privacy. One possible solution would be a panel composed of both doctors and correctional officials who would study the request and make a decision after considering the competing interests in the given circumstances. A total of 160 footnotes are provided.