Opinion ID: 1917662
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Interests of Third Parties and Prevention of Suicide

Text: The Commissioner advances no contention that the interests of innocent third parties or the prevention of suicide are implicated in this case. Although the Commissioner contends that we should follow the case of Polk, we suggest that Polk is further distinguishable from the present case on another basis. In concluding that the State of Iowa had a compelling interest in preserving Brown's life, the court in Polk factored into its analysis the emotional impact upon Brown's minor children and that Brown might someday be in a position to provide financial support for them. Polk, 594 N.W.2d at 428. Here, as the Court of Special Appeals pointed out, [t]here is nothing in [Reid's] condition that endangers or affects the public health. In addition, as the intermediate appellate court noted, Reid has no children or dependents that would be affected by any choice [he] makes concerning his health. Stouffer, 184 Md.App. at 284, 965 A.2d at 105. Considering the specific circumstances of this case and Reid's right to refuse medical treatment, absent evidence that Reid is a direct threat to the safety and well being of others or that he is protesting any prison policies or attempting to manipulate an official, we agree with the Court of Special Appeals that the State has not shown a valid penological interest in compelling Reid to submit to dialysis. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS AFFIRMED. COSTS TO BE PAID BY PETITIONER.