About that Force-Feeding of Gitmo Detainees

By Jeralyn, Section Terror Detainees
Posted on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 01:31:39 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Force-feeding is painful. Newsweek this week examines whether doctors should be force-feeding the detainees in the wake of a recent visit by Dr. S. Ward Casscells, the new assistant secretary of Defense for health affairs. His verdict: it's okay.

Casscells watched as a half-dozen Gitmo prisoners went through the 45-minute procedure. They were strapped into "restraint chairs" and a L/jo-inch soft rubber tube was fed through their noses. (Prisoners may request a local anesthetic to ease the discomfort.) The patients ingest a tasteless high-protein mix, and guards watch them for an hour to make sure they do not self-induce vomiting. "Nobody kicked or screamed," Casscells says.

Other Gitmo doctors agree:

There are seven doctors at Gitmo, and according to Casscells, none has objected to the forced feedings."

Hundreds of other doctors around the world disagree and sharply condemned force-feeding in a letter to the Lancet medical journal.

< Stressed and Fatigued Troops in Iraq: The Draft is Not the Answer | Media Malpractice and Dishonest "Scholars" >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

About that Force-Feeding of Gitmo Detainees | 38 comments (38 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Not so fun facts (5.00 / 0) (#6)
by Sailor on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:03:35 PM EST

Hunger strikes undertaken as a means of prison protest have occurred regularly during the past century, beginning with the imprisonment of women demonstrating for the right to vote.8-9

And the World Medical Association:

Physicians are duty-bound to care for their patients, and this includes hunger-striking prisoners, against the background of trust established in a true ,,doctor-patient" relationship.
[...]
If, however, a prisoner at an advanced stage of a hunger strike is restored to consciousness or to a physiological situation where there can be no doubt about his state of mind, and that prisoner clearly indicates disapproval of the doctor's action, then the doctor should be prepared to step back and not intervene again. In such cases it can be argued that ensuring the patient's welfare means allowing fasting prisoners the last possibility of freedom of action, and letting them at least die with dignity.
Doctors should never be party to actual coercive feeding, with prisoners being tied down and intravenous drips or oesophageal tubes being forced into them. Such actions can be considered a form of torture, and under no circumstances should doctors participate in them

: Sailor still can't figure it out (1.00 / 0) (#26)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 08:09:50 PM EST

Just so you don't misunerstand:

If, however, a prisoner at an advanced stage of a hunger strike is restored to consciousness or to a physiological situation where there can be no doubt about his state of mind, and that prisoner clearly indicates disapproval of the doctor's action, then the doctor should be prepared to step back and not intervene again.
These prisoner are not at an advanced "stage."
But no matter. What the above describes is assisted suicide.
I'll let you know what the AMA says in response to my Email.

Assisted suicide (1.00 / 0) (#3)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 03:47:26 PM EST

Hundreds of other doctors around the world disagre

Supposedly Doctors are sworn to first do no harm, and secondly to do what possible to keep the patient alive.

Given that the force feeding is done to prevent suicide by starvation by the prisoner, if the Doctor did not use force feeding it appears to me that he would be guilty of doing harm to the patient by doing nothing.

It would be interesting to see how these "hundreds" of Doctors come down on assisted suicide, mercy killings, etc.

what a flip flopper (5.00 / 0) (#10)
by Sailor on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:18:34 PM EST

ppj's previous position was 'good, let them die'; now suddenly he's all humanitarian, which would seem to be counter to his constant endorsement of kidnapping, humiliation and torture ... except force feeding an unwilling patient is torture.

And BTW, ppj's understanding of medical ethics is as absent as his personal ethics IRT this subject.

Dying with dignity is a human right, recognized by the UN, the AMA and the WMA. DNR is a personal choice recognized the world over by medical professionals.

As he and/or his wife will face that decision soon I would hope that some empathy, or at least teh better angels of his nature, will come into existence.


: There is no flip=flop (1.00 / 0) (#35)
by Pancho on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 03:34:17 PM EST

He holds the same view that I do. Saying "good, let them die" is not contradictory from saying "what's wrong with force feeding them?" I would personally prefer that they let these scumbags die, but if they prefer not to allow them to become martyrs, I can go alnog with that.

: I don't mind your attacks (none / 0) (#39)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 11:36:18 PM EST

but making things up is despicable, unethical and a few other things I will leave unsaid.

ppj's previous position was 'good, let them die';
Prove it. And if you can't, then we know that you are just an ankle biting first class fibber.

fair trade (1.00 / 0) (#24)
by diogenes on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 07:44:08 PM EST

How about this-the prisoners are free to starve themselves and Bush is free to deny them press publicity, photos, etc, simply shipping their remains after they die to the country of their choice. There is no constitutional right to press coverage as an enemy combatant. A hunger strike deprived of publicity quickly ends.

Gotta keep them alive (none / 0) (#1)
by RedHead on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 02:01:09 PM EST

visions of bobby sands aside, Romney wants to double the size of GITMO (because that's what Jesus would want). All those empty cages would look funny, without any "detainees."

the (none / 0) (#2)
by Sumner on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 02:40:50 PM EST

military's take (.pdf)

Nasogastric tube (NG-tube) prisoner feeding (none / 0) (#4)
by Sumner on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 03:47:52 PM EST

Testimony of the Hospital Commander

If you are for assisted suicide, just say yes (1.00 / 0) (#9)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:17:50 PM EST

Article 6 of The 1975 Tokyo Declaration of the World Medical Association: "Where a prisoner refuses nourishment and is considered by the physician as capable of forming an unimpaired and rational judgment concerning the consequences of such a voluntary refusal of nourishment, he or she shall not be fed artificially."

If you want to come down on allowing people to kill themselves while in your custody you are welcome to do so.

Me, I say "nuts" to such regulations.

And I would tell any Doctor who abides by the above that the they are in violation of their oath.


but you would be wrong and hypocritical (5.00 / 0) (#11)
by Sailor on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:22:42 PM EST

ppj was all for letting the hunger strikers die ... and now he wants to impose extreme measures so that they don't.

You'll feel differently when it's you or a loved one in the bed.

And I would tell any Doctor who abides by the above that the they are in violation of their oath.

but since you are a retired saleman and not a dr you have no idea what their 'oath' and what medical ethics regarding this are.


Sailor - Prove it (none / 0) (#40)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 11:41:25 PM EST

ppj was all for letting the hunger strikers die ... and now he wants to impose extreme measures so that they don't

or accept the Scarlet L to be stamped on your comments so all should know who you are and what you do.


: are you denying it? (none / 0) (#41)
by Sailor on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 05:01:11 PM EST

Pain (none / 0) (#5)
by Gabriel Malor on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:00:41 PM EST

Force-feeding is painful.

I'm told starvation is a similarly painful experience. The point is not to inflict pain. The point is to keep the prisoners healthy, even against their will.

It's a tough situation with no good solutions: let them starve or force-feed them.

Some people would claim there is a third option: release. However, they don't have a very convincing argument that this is a "good" option.

pain - point by point (5.00 / 0) (#13)
by Sailor on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:40:04 PM EST

I'm told starvation is a similarly painful experience.

Do you not understand the difference between a choice and not a choice? (ppst, it's called 'freedom'; the last one they have left. Personally, I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees.)

What have they been charged with? You don't have a 'convincing argument' when you have no idea when/how/why they were kidnapped and put in a prison camp by bush that was deliberately chosen to be outside the US territory.

Did it ever strike you as odd/ironic that bush chose a communist country in which to hold these people?


sailor - point by point (1.00 / 0) (#14)
by Gabriel Malor on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 05:16:53 PM EST

ppst, it's called 'freedom'; the last one they have left.

::whisper:: Actually it's not; case in point.

What have they been charged with?

As we've been over before, international law says combatants can be held until the cessation of hostilities. (It also forbids charging POWs for fighting for their country.) Combatants can challenge their detentions at CSRBs and if they think them inadequate they can appeal to the courts.

Did it ever strike you as odd/ironic that bush chose a communist country in which to hold these people?

No, I can't say that it did.


Dying with dignity (5.00 / 0) (#15)
by Sailor on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 05:32:41 PM EST

The fact that you defend Americans torturing people in a communist country pretty much says it all about you.

AMA, UMA, and the Conventions Against Torture disagree with you, as do I.

p.s. CSRBs are a bushco invention, the GenCons say a neutral body.

p.p.s. The kidnapped folks can't challenge their imprisonment ... except in a secret hearing in which their 'lawyers' can't see the evidence against them and can't tell anyone else about it. And even when found not to be 'terrorists' the decision gets overturned by uhhh, someone, and then they are removed from the csrb and a more bushlike judge is put in their place.

You have a very peculiar definition of freedom.

If only on one point I agree with the folks in GitMo; I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees.


Sailor says... (1.00 / 0) (#18)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 05:43:01 PM EST

BTW - I find it extremely difficult to believe that the American Medical Association would think it ethical for us to let a prisioner in our care starve themselves to death when we have the means to prevent it.

Pleasde provide some links.


I provided plenty of links ... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Sailor on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 05:59:54 PM EST

... you just have a willfull ignorance and inability to comprehend simple english.

But once again, I give others without your self-imposed disabilities, these 11,000+ articles IRT the AMA being against force feeding.

p.s. Your love of torture and kidnapping has been documented many times, I refuse to respond further to your inhuman fetishes.


: Not that it will help... (1.00 / 0) (#20)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 06:39:03 PM EST

I shall have to tell the AMA how disgusted I am with them.
Will their next agenda be mercy killings?

: Let me see... I am against assisting suicide. (1.00 / 0) (#21)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 06:49:58 PM EST

You are not.
And you claim to be on the side of the angels??
Heh and wow.

Wha? (1.00 / 0) (#23)
by Gabriel Malor on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 06:59:45 PM EST

I've never defended torture and consistently written that it is illegal under domestic and international law.

The federal courts disagree so far. If you don't like them, I encourage you to send money to support detainee challenges.

I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees.

I would rather do neither.


: force feeding is torture (5.00 / 0) (#27)
by Sailor on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:12:17 AM EST

you endorse force feeding by bush when it is done in a communist country.

That's interesting (none / 0) (#16)
by Al on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 05:38:26 PM EST

Now they're combatants under international law.


: Combatants. (none / 0) (#22)
by Gabriel Malor on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 06:56:48 PM EST

Al, they've never not been combatants under international law. You can search in that little box over --> for the many comments I've made on the subject. Or you can always read O'Connor's opinion in Hamdi.

Sailor loves strawmen (1.00 / 0) (#17)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 05:39:33 PM EST

Actually when we took them under our care, we became responsible for them.

Assisted suicide is against the law. The lack of action to feed them when we could, would be de facto suicide assistance.

If you disagree with that kindly quit complaining about alleged torture, etc.

As for "catch and release"

"Of the people that we've released, we've captured a number of them or killed a number of them back on the battlefield in Afghanistan," Hunter, R-Calif., told FOX News on Sunday. "The question is, are we liberal enough in the application of our standards that determine who we release back into the world. I think some American parents who have kids out there would argue we're too liberal."
Citing a memo prepared for him by his staff, Hunter proceeded to discuss some of the at least 10 detainees who have been released from Guantanamo Bay, or Gitmo, only to re-join the fight against the U.S. coalition bringing democracy to Afghanistan.
Among the names listed in the memo is Mohammed Yusif Yaqeb (search), also known as Mullah Shazada. Yaqeb was released in May 2003. He proceeded to become the head of Taliban (search) operations in southern Afghanistan and was killed one year later in a fight with U.S. forces.

Does getting caught twice count??"


the AMA disagrees with you (5.00 / 0) (#33)
by Sailor on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:40:06 PM EST

and relying on a known liar like duncan hunter ranting to a known wrongwing outlet like faux news is typical of your cherry picking things and going off topic. It's about force feeding, which is torture.

BTW, here's more about those allegations of folks being recaptured. Note how many of the lies were disproven and the rest were made by anonymous bushco officials.


Walt (1.00 / 1) (#29)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 08:06:32 AM EST

Nope, my point was that we have released people that we should not. And that no matter what you call them, they are enemies who want to attack us.

That you seem to be unable to recohnize that is sad, but then you aren't the one who has to fight them.

Sleep well. Some tough hard soldier is doing it for you.


: W66 (1.00 / 1) (#31)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 11:53:51 AM EST

I would call it responding to political pressure by the anti-Bush Left.
And damn costly that pressure turned out to be, eh??
And since we live in the present, why don't you start supportung the troops by supporting the war rather continually talking about the past.
BTW - Can you think of mistakes made in WWII??
Do you think we should have quit because Ike wouldn't let Patton drive on to Berlin in the Fall of '44??
Do you think we should have quit becaise of the mistake after mistake we made during the Civil War??

GM (1.00 / 0) (#12)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:38:42 PM EST

Especially since some of those released have been caught the second time.

Kinda like a "Catch and Release" program for some fish.


really, you got proof of that? (none / 0) (#32)
by Sailor on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 01:31:39 PM EST

Or just anonymous allegations and non-specific rants by proven rethuglian liars?


Sailor only believes what the Left says. (1.00 / 0) (#34)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 03:25:00 PM EST

Nope. I have no quotes from MoveOn or Kos.

Sorry, you'll just have to accept a quote from a real sure enough news network.


it was a quote from faux news ... (5.00 / 0) (#36)
by Sailor on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 03:49:42 PM EST

... made by a known rethuglican liar who also claimed to have found the missing WMDs in iraq, something even the pentagon denied.

But thanks for playing.


: Sailor loves starwmen (none / 0) (#38)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 11:32:45 PM EST

And, of course, you can not prove it wrong so you make outrageous claims.
We know you.

more at (none / 0) (#7)
by Sumner on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:04:34 PM EST

Democracy Now! and Daily Kos.

It just stinks that in a number of cases, the tube instead snakes into the brain.

Fast Forced Feeding (none / 0) (#8)
by jnickens on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:05:02 PM EST

I recall reading that military personnel force feed the prisoners very quickly, giving them the entire volume in a short period of time. This makes the procedure both painful and dangerous, standard for the Bush regime.

: Three Bears (1.00 / 0) (#25)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 08:06:03 PM EST

Well, I don't know. Some on the Left wants none.
Some on the left wants it slow.
PPJ in the middle wants it just right...