| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Lurid Crime Tales- |
| WA Supreme Court - Fasting Inmate Can't Refuse Force-Feeding |
| 2008-04-11 |
| The state Supreme Court says a jail inmate who was starving himself did not have a right to refuse force-feeding. But the court is split on whether the state only has the right to force-feed prisoners in certain circumstances. Four of the justices say the state had a right to force-feed Charles McNabb because he was trying to commit suicide. Four others argue that McNabb's privacy rights were not violated by the force-feeding because he was not terminally ill and has no right refuse life-sustaining treatment. One dissenting justice argues that McNabb had a right to refuse force-feeding under privacy rights guaranteed by the state constitution. Interesting in light of Washington States pro-euthanasia stance. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #5 Hanging an anorexic is going to be just plain bad PR... |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2008-04-11 21:32 |
| #4 If he could refuse, it wouldn't be force feeding, now would it? |
| Posted by: Chief Running Gag 2008-04-11 17:21 |
| #3 Background... http://spokesmanreview.com/breaking/story.asp?ID=14493 |
| Posted by: tu3031 2008-04-11 12:40 |
| #2 See, you confuse principle with POWER. POWER does not require principle. Thus two inconsistent principles can be supported by our new Princes, Dukes, Counts, who but wear robes and are thus above the rest of us. They say so. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-04-11 11:33 |
| #1 So you lose your right to die when you are convicted of a felony in Washington? That's a curious consequence. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2008-04-11 10:21 |