Lantz v. Coleman: Difference between revisions
m →See also: already linked, WP:SEEALSO |
|||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
New York University's [[Jacob M. Appel]] has called for the revocation of the medical licenses of physician involved in Coleman's force feeding including Blanchette. |
New York University's [[Jacob M. Appel]] has called for the revocation of the medical licenses of physician involved in Coleman's force feeding including Blanchette. |
||
==See also== |
|||
*[[force feeding]] |
|||
==Notes== |
==Notes== |
||
Revision as of 20:08, 30 March 2012
Lantz v. Coleman[1] is a Connecticut superior court case that addresses the constitutionality of forcibly feeding prison inmates on hunger strikes.[2]
Background
The plaintiff in the case, William B. Coleman, is a British national who was sentenced to eight years in state prison in 2005 for sexually assaulting his wife.[2] She had alleged rape two days after Coleman had applied for custody of their children[3] and he was convicted without any physical evidence being presented at the trial.[4][5] He is appealing the conviction and argues his wife falsely accused him of rape in order to gain custody of their children.[6] In 2007, Coleman stopped eating solid foods to protest what he perceived as corruption in the Connecticut legal system. A year later, he started to refuse liquids and nutritional supplements as well.
The medical director of the prison in which Coleman was jailed, Dr. Edward Blanchette, ordered that Coleman be forcibly fed against his wishes. He had Coleman strapped down without any sedation and forced a feeding tube through the inmate's nose into his stomach--after multiple tries which Coleman claims were painful and bloody. In response, Coleman agreed to stop his hunger strike. He then sued for a right to turn down force feeds.
Trial
Coleman and the ACLU of Connecticut presented their case to Judge James Graham.[7] The court later granted the prison's injunction to allow force feeding.[1]
Significance
The Coleman case has pitted several of the nation's leading bioethicists and physicians against the Connecticut prison system. The University of Pennsylvania's Arthur Caplan, who testified for Coleman at the trial, wrote in the Harford Courant:
Prisoners do not have many rights while in jail. But, one right they do have is the right to protest including the decision not to eat or drink. As horrible as it is to watch someone starve when they need not do so, the state of Connecticut should accept that a competent prisoner may make that choice. I hope that Coleman decides that he has made his point and ends his hunger-strike. But it is not right to use medical treatment to force him not to do so.[8]
New York University's Jacob M. Appel has called for the revocation of the medical licenses of physician involved in Coleman's force feeding including Blanchette.
Notes
- ^ a b Lantz v. Coleman, 978 A. 2d 164 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2009)
- ^ a b Spencer, Mark. Judge Set To Rule On Force-Feeding Of Inmate, The Hartford Courant, Nov. 11, 2009
- ^ Rapist Briton's victory on 'right' to starve himself to death | Mail Online
- ^ Jailed British Man's Hunger Strike Fight: William Coleman Begins Court Battle In Connecticut | World News | Sky News
- ^ Briton serving eight years for rape fights attempt to force-feed him after 16-month hunger strike | Mail Online
- ^ British man to be force-fed in US jail - Americas, World - The Independent
- ^ Beyond Guantanamo: Torture Thrives in Connecticut
- ^ Art Caplan: Force-Feeding A Starving Inmate Violates Medical Ethics