Court Opinion

ID: 9819546
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 06:27:26.449592+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:31.198476
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE KNECHT, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. I agree with the holdings in Zant v. Prevatte, 248 Ga. 832, 286 S.E.2d 715, and Thor v. Superior Court, 5 Cal. 4th 725, 855 P.2d 375, 21 Cal. Rptr. 2d 357. Eldon Millard is competent to refuse medical treatment or medication. He does not wish to commit suicide, but he is willing to die. His hunger strike is a protest against prison conditions and his transfer to Pontiac. His protest does not extend to prison conditions in general, nor does he seek to enlist other inmates in a cause. The State presented no evidence showing his conduct had disrupted the prison or raised security issues. No evidence was presented other inmates sympathize with him or are themselves prepared to go on a hunger strike in response to his conduct. No anecdotal evidence was presented as to what has occurred in other institutions after a hunger strike or a death by hunger strike so even an inference could be drawn as to what might occur. The Department simply asserts we need to forcibly feed Millard to keep him alive. We need to do so with a nasogastric tube, and then— because this is a temporary solution — we need to surgically insert a tube into his stomach. To maintain an orderly and disciplined institution, we want to do these things against his expressed wishes. I agree an inmate’s right to privacy must be balanced against the Department’s interest in maintaining order, security, and discipline. What is missing in this record is any evidence that Millard’s conduct has had, or will have, any effect on order, security, or discipline. There is no balancing to be done. Millard has carefully expressed his will. We need not like him or the reasons for his hunger strike, but if the government wants to ram a tube down his throat or cut a hole in his abdomen, it should be required to demonstrate a compelling reason for doing so. Millard cannot travel or work where he pleases. He cannot take a walk or enjoy unlimited access to earth and sky. He forfeited liberty when he was convicted of a crime. He does not deserve unfettered freedom — but the right to refuse medical treatment continues to reside with him. I believe this right encompasses refusing nourishment. The right to die — if he chooses to do so quietly and without disruption — is a civil liberty he retains. It is a liberty that belongs to him. If the government wishes to take that liberty from him, it must explain and persuade. It cannot just speculate that something bad may happen.