| Description |
One of the foundational tensions of modem societies is that of group rights versus the rights of individuals. In western societies such as the United States, this tension is at the heart of legal codes and the legal process. It is seen in legal battles involving the right of death-row inmates to refuse life-saving hydration and nutrition. Courts have been inconsistent in defending this right on behalf of death-row inmates, but have universally upheld this right for terminally ill, mentally competent patients. This paper concerns the State's right to force-feed death-row inmates. It argues that based on a comparison of Collette and Windt's 1985 study of the elderly and interviews of death-row inmates conducted for this paper, both populations face an imminent death and, are therefore, legally comparable. Courts have held that a terminally ill individual's right to refuse life-saving hydration and nutrition outweigh the State's interest in preserving life, preventing suicide, protecting the rights of innocent third parties, and preserving the ethical integrity of the medical profession. However, only in the presence of the latter two exceptions have the courts found the interest of the State to preserve the life of a terminally ill patient to outweigh the patient's right to refuse medical treatment. Yet, in cases dealing with death-row inmates who wish to exercise their right to refuse medical treatment, the courts have often decided in favor of the State even in the absence of either of the afore stated exceptions. 11 The similarities between the condition of terminally ill patients and life on death row necessitate a review of courts' inconsistent treatment. In this paper, data collected from interviews of death-row inmates regarding end-of-life decision-making is compared to John Collette and Peter Y. Windt's study, Decision-Making, Dying and Quality a/Life; which analyzed factors that influence the elderly's decision whether to submit to life saving medical treatment. The findings of Collette and Windt's study are analogous to the inmates' responses. Based on the findings of these two studies, this paper argues that the situation of death-row inmates and mentally competent, terminally ill patients appear comparable, and that inmates are therefore entitled to the same legal right to refuse life saving hydration and nutrition as are the terminally ill. |
