This one is put in the context of Guantanamo Bay, but I think there is a broader context to consider.

Is it ethical for a doctor to force-feed a prisoner on a hunger strike? An opinion piece in the Aug. 1 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association suggests doctors should refuse to force-feed detainees at Guantánamo Bay as long as the prisoners are capable of making rational choices. This month Dr. S. Ward Casscells, the new assistant secretary of Defense for health affairs, went to Guantánamo to "look at it with my own eyes," he told NEWSWEEK. Of the 355 detainees still in Gitmo, about 20 are on hunger strike at any one time, he says. Prisoners who skip nine straight meals go under "observation"; the forced feeding usually begins when they dip 15 percent beneath their ideal weight. (Overeating is actually a problem at Gitmo; Casscells says many prisoners take drugs for diabetes and high cholesterol.)

Now the information about Gitmo prisoners is interesting, but not relevant here. The bigger question is what we should do, as a society, about hunger strikers.

My answer? Let them starve -- to death, if necessary.

And I don't just say that in regard to Gitmo terrorists -- I also mean that in regard to these folks.

Seriously -- if someone is going to threaten to go on a hunger strike, we should expect them to take it to the limit. No food, no water, no supplements. Indeed, it is morally incumbent for us to not interfere with their "courageous moral stand" to "speak truth to power" . Furthermore, we as a society should ridicule and despise anyone who quits a hunger strike short of receiving the goal for which they began it. After all, a three or four day fast is not a hunger strike, and neither is a "no solid food but I'll take smoothies and ice cream" demonstration like Cindy Sheehan did a while back.

Hunger strikes are supposed to be a non-violent demonstration of one's willingness to die for what one believes in. Claiming to be on a hunger strike while having anything short of such a commitment is simply publicity-seeking self-aggrandizement that merits contempt -- and outside interference with such an act of self-sacrifice is meddling with a fundamental right to individual autonomy.

Posted by: Greg at 08:59 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 398 words, total size 3 kb.