View Full Version : Prisoners on Hunger Strike
I heard today that Ian Brady has been on hunger strike for the last 6 years. He wants to die. Is forcefeeding prisoners like Brady a breach of their human rights?
I remember the IRA hunger strikers were allowed to die, what has changed?:confused:
willowbankbear
21-Feb-06, 15:16
Let him suffer a life of hell, coz thats what he gave the parents of his victims
bet those who forcefeed him do it cause they have to its their job. maybe inside there thinking is this piece of scum worth it.
I heard today that Ian Brady has been on hunger strike for the last 6 years. He wants to die. Is forcefeeding prisoners like Brady a breach of their human rights?
I remember the IRA hunger strikers were allowed to die, what has changed?:confused:
Make Brady suffer, dieing would be an easy option for him, keep him alive. Who cared about Bobby Sands he was just a terrorist.
Someday he'll get his wish and there will be nothing anyone can do about it.
Aren't doctors under oath to preserve life? Maybe its just the Hippocratic oath that's being applied.
Make Brady suffer, dieing would be an easy option for him, keep him alive. Who cared about Bobby Sands he was just a terrorist.
I fully understand and in some ways agree with your opinion. However, I think the prison authorities have got their priorities mixed up here. The IRA got a lot of publicity by portraying Sands and Co as 'martyrs', a good reason for force feeding in my book. However, in the case of Brady, he is a 'nothing' to me, he has had 40 years to think about it so I think it is time to grant his wish. It would save the taxpayer ~£2000 per week, that is too much to pay for my satisfaction of his incarcerated suffering.
Maybe its just the Hippocratic oath that's being applied.
That is the confusing thing, where was the hippocratic oath when the IRA hungerstrikes were on?
willowbankbear
21-Feb-06, 15:33
Make Brady suffer, dieing would be an easy option for him, keep him alive. Who cared about Bobby Sands he was just a terrorist.
Terrorist M.p to be exact, his death did gather a lot of support for the Repub. movement ,better than any bombing or killings.
Brady is a sick depraved monster, keep the filth alive
That is the confusing thing, where was the hippocratic oath when the IRA hungerstrikes were on?
I don't know. Did they actually let them die or did they try to force feed them?
I don't know much about it really. Can you tell? ;)
More info here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/493713.stm
I would force feed him Myra Hindley.
willowbankbear
21-Feb-06, 16:06
Harald Shipmann for Dessert ??[lol]
Put him in a room with the loved ones of his victims and then he will know what it means to suffer!
I heard today that Ian Brady has been on hunger strike for the last 6 years. He wants to die. Is forcefeeding prisoners like Brady a breach of their human rights?
I remember the IRA hunger strikers were allowed to die, what has changed?:confused:
The change is that we have become terrified we might upset somebody's feelings and they might make a fuss.
Is the difference whether Brady is detained under the mental health act?
To be honest i dont know whether he is or not but if the man is classed as "mentally ill" or "insane" then isnt any decision to hunger strike he makes suspect? Can itbe deemed to be a sane coherent decision. If it isnt a sane decision then surely the authorities have to force feed him. If he is not "insane" then a decision to hunger strike could be seen to be "sane" and the person not allowed to be force fed.
Crikey im not sure that made any sense at all
Is the difference whether Brady is detained under the mental health act?
To be honest i dont know whether he is or not but if the man is classed as "mentally ill" or "insane" then isnt any decision to hunger strike he makes suspect? Can itbe deemed to be a sane coherent decision. If it isnt a sane decision then surely the authorities have to force feed him. If he is not "insane" then a decision to hunger strike could be seen to be "sane" and the person not allowed to be force fed.
Crikey im not sure that made any sense at all
According to the info that Saveman gave, it would only be legal to force feed to enable treatment for his mental health. If it were deemed that they weren't making any attempt to cure him then the force feeding should be deemed illegal. That is my take on it anyways. Just to classify someone as mentally ill then force feed him without treatment is illegal in my eyes.
Both Hindley and Brady were found guilty of Murder and Sentenced to Life Imprisonment. I cannot recall if any tariff was set but I think not.
They only missed hanging by a matter of months. At the time of the murders and at the trial he was still "sane" (I use the term loosely considering what they had done) and no attempt to claim "Insanity" was made by either of them.
Whilst Brady was serving his sentence it was concluded that he had become insane and he was transferred to the Secure Mental Institution at Rampton, where he has remained ever since.
As far as I am aware, he is still detained under his conviction and not under the Mental Health Act, but is none the less considered to be insane.
It would therefore be because of his mental competence that Force Feeding is being administered.
From the article Saveman posted, it states that a person wanting to starve themselves have to make a detailed binding statement that even on deaths door they do not want to be fed. I would hazard a guess that the Irish terrorists did so and Bradley did/has not. He is vieing for publicity which he is getting, apparently.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.