Matter of Brown
Annotate this CaseDecided on May 17, 2005
Supreme Court, Seneca County
In the Matter of the Application of Thomas Poole, Superintendent of Five Points Correctional Facility, Petitioner, for an Order Authorizing the Feeding of Ronny Brown, Respondent.
36014
Hon. Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General by
Emil J. Bove, Jr., Esq.
On behalf of the Petitioner
Michael J. Mirras, Esq.
On behalf of the Respondent
Dennis F. Bender, J.
Before this Court is a petition by the Superintendent of Five Points Correctional Facility which seeks an order authorizing the forced feeding of Ronny Brown, an inmate at that institution. Although the respondent has again begun to eat on his own, the petitioner seeks an order which would allow for forced feeding without further order should the respondent again refuse. Two previous applications were brought, both withdrawn because the respondent began again to eat on his own after the entry of a temporary order authorizing nasal-gastric feeding. In both cases however, Mr. Brown again stopped eating upon termination of the temporary order.
In all instances, Mr. Brown's weight had reduced dangerously low prior to the application. In both cases unconverted allegations were made that continued failure of Mr. Brown to eat would result in dire consequences, ultimately resulting in death.
After the filing of the third petition the Court again signed a temporary order which authorized nasal-gastric or such other method of feeding as was deemed medically appropriate pending an opportunity for the matter to be heard. Mr. Brown has again begun to eat on his own and at this time his weight has increased to 131 pounds. [*2]
Counsel was assigned to represent Mr. Brown, as was done previously. Counsel moved for authority to hire a public or private expert to conduct a psychological evaluation of Mr. Brown as counsel questions his mental health. On the record however, counsel presented that his client now seems more coherent, and capable of participating in a hearing.
Even one institutionalized by the state has a fundamental right to refuse medical treatment, and due process requires that those liberty interests be balanced against the state's compelling needs. Rivers v. Katz, 67 NY2d 485, 498. If it is determined that the patient does not have the capacity to make his own treatment decisions however, court authority may properly be given to provide treatment. Id. Here, if Mr. Brown does not have capacity to comprehend what is occurring and to fully appreciate the effect of his actions, then, predicated upon the inevitable result of a refusal to eat, an order would be appropriate to authorize the feeding in order to protect Mr. Brown's fundamental right to life. On the other hand, if he does comprehend the nature and effect of his actions, the same constitutes an attempt to commit suicide. Although decided prior to the Rivers case, the Fourth Department stated in Matter of VonHolden v. Chapman, (87 AD2d 66, 70 (4th Dept, 1982)), that "[e]ven superficial comparison of the right to decline medical treatment with the right to take one's life illustrates their essential dissimilarity and to argue that because the State has recognized the former it must permit the latter would be to engage in the most specious reasoning."
Accordingly, I find in the final analysis that it does not matter whether Mr. Brown is aware of the effects of his actions or not. The application for authority to have Mr. Brown examined is thus denied, and the request for an order allowing Mr. Brown to be fed against his
will by nasal-gastric intubation or other methods deemed medically appropriate should he again refuse to eat is hereby granted for a period of four months from the date of the court appearance on May 9, 2005.
Dated: May 17, 2005_________________________________________
Dennis F. Bender, Acting JSC
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
