Hunger Strikes

[Kulaf]

I was going to put this in the philosophy section, but since most hunger strikes are political in nature I thought here would be better. So my question is.....what moral stand (if any) should the government take regarding hunger stikes by prisoners?

I see two conflicting issues regarding personal liberty: 1) the right of a person to choose and to live their life as they will, and 2) the "responsiblity" of the state to ensure that prisoners do not harm themselves. I firmly believe that part of the thought process that goes into the decesion to engage in a hunger strike is one of control. Prisoners generally feel a total loss of control, and taking control of ones food intake is a measure of restoring some sense of freedom.....even if it is the freedom to die as one chooses to. The state of course has to violate a persons body in order to maintain their life via a feeding tube. The arguement presumably being that no one in their right mind would choose to die, but is that actually the case. Are people who engage in hunger strikes actually "non compos mentis"? Unlike other forms of ending ones life, hunger strike is undoubtably one of the slowest and most obvious form, so there is plenty of time for a change of heart. It no doubt takes more effort and control to kill oneself over weeks than it does to pop some pills or pull a trigger.

My personal feeling is the states responsibility ends at providing as safe an environment as possible, and providing all of the nutritional requirements to maintain a quality of life. What a prisoner decides to do with that environment and nutrition is their responsibility.

[Ddrak]

They'll fall unconscious eventually, at which point you're justified in feeding them by IV until healthy again.

And yes, it's absolutely about control. I see it as about equivalent to "I'll hold my breath if you don't do what I say".

Dd