This article poses a response to one argument supporting the force feeding of political prisoners. This argument assumes that prisoners have moral autonomy and thus cannot be force fed in the early stages of their hunger strike. However, as their fasting progresses, their cognitive competence declines, and they are no longer autonomous. Since they are no longer autonomous, force feeding becomes justified. This article questions the recurrent citation of a paper in empirical support of the claim that hunger strike causes (...) mental disorders or cognitive impairments. The paper, written by Daniel Fessler, partially relies on the Minnesota Starvation Experiment conducted in 1944 to 1945 for scientific support. Using widely accepted criteria for assessing the ethical acceptability of clinical research, we argue that the Minnesota Starvation Experiment had significant scientific shortcomings and is a case of unethical research. From this, we question the appropriateness of citing the Minnesota Starvation Experiment and consequently Fessler’s paper. If Citing Fessler’s paper becomes problematic, this particular argument for the force feeding of prisoners loses much of its strength. (shrink)

Previous research has shown that short-term fasting in healthy individuals is associated with changes in risky decision-making. The current experiment was designed to examine the influence of short-term fasting in healthy individuals on four types of impulsivity: reflection impulsivity, risky decision-making, delay aversion, and action inhibition. Participants were tested twice, once when fasted for 20 hours, and once when satiated. Participants demonstrated impaired action inhibition when fasted; committing significantly more errors of commission during a food-related Affective Shifting Task. Participants also (...) displayed decreased reflection impulsivity when fasted, opening significantly more boxes during the Information Sampling Task (IST). There were no significant differences in performance between fasted and satiated sessions for risky decision-making or delay aversion. These findings may have implications for understanding eating disorders such as Bulimia Nervosa (BN). Although BN has been characterised as a disorder of poor impulse control, inconsistent findings when comparing individuals with BN and healthy individuals on behavioural measures of impulsivity question this characterisation. Since individuals with BN undergo periods of short-term fasting, the inconsistent findings could be due to differences in the levels of satiation of participants. The current results indicate that fasting can affect performance on the IST, a measure of impulsivity previously studied in BN, whilst performance on other impulsivity measures were unaffected. However, the results from the IST were contrary to the original hypothesis and should be replicated before specific conclusions can be made. (shrink)

In 2015, the Israeli Knesset passed the force-feeding act that permits the director of the Israeli prison authority to appeal to the district court with a request to force-feed a prisoner against his expressed will. A recent position paper by top Israeli clinicians and bioethicists, published in Hebrew, advocates for force-feeding by medical professionals and presents several arguments that this would be appropriate. Here, we first posit three interrelated questions: 1. Do prisoners have a right to hunger-strike? 2. Should governing (...) institutions force-feed prisoners and/or is it ethical to force-feed prisoners? 3. Should healthcare professionals force-feed prisoners? We then focus on the first and third questions. We first briefly provide several arguments to support the right of prisoners to refuse treatment. Next, we critically review the arguments presented in the Israeli position paper, demonstrating that they are all misguided at best. Lastly, we briefly present arguments against force-feeding by medical professionals. We conclude that healthcare providers should not participate in the force-feeding of prisoners. (shrink)

Hunger strikes potentially present a serious challenge for attending physicians. Though rare, in certain cases, a conflict can occur between the obligations of beneficence and autonomy. On the one hand, physicians have a duty to preserve life, which entails intervening in a hunger strike before the hunger striker loses his life. On the other hand, physicians’ duty to respect autonomy implies that attending physicians have to respect hunger strikers’ decisions to refuse nutrition. International medical guidelines state that physicians should follow (...) the strikers’ unpressured advance directives. When physicians encounter an unconscious striker, in the absence of reliable advance directives, the guidelines advise physicians to make a decision on the basis of the patient’s values, previously expressed wishes, and best interests. I argue that if there are no advance directives and the striker has already lost his competence, the physician has the responsibility to resuscitate the striker. Once the striker regains his decision-making capacity, he should be asked about his decision. If he is determined to continue fasting and refuses treatment, the physician has a moral obligation to respect this decisions and follow his advance directives. (shrink)

Several bioethicists have recently advocated the force-feeding of prisoners, based on the assumption that prisoners have reduced or no autonomy. This assumed lack of autonomy follows from a decrease in cognitive competence, which, in turn, supposedly derives from imprisonment and/or being on hunger strike. In brief, causal links are made between imprisonment or voluntary total fasting and mental disorders and between mental disorders and lack of cognitive competence. I engage the bioethicists that support force-feeding by severing both of these causal (...) links. Specifically, I refute the claims that VTF automatically and necessarily causes mental disorders such as depression, and that these mental disorders necessarily or commonly entail cognitive impairment. Instead, I critically review more nuanced approaches to assessing mental competence in hunger strikes, urging that a diagnosis of incompetence be made on a case-by-case basis—a position that is widely shared by the medical community. (shrink)

In January 2009, the California Court of Appeal for the Fifth District held that an individual suffering from paranoid schizophrenia could be forcefed and medicated despite his refusal of consent. The patient was a prison inmate, who engaged in a hunger strike to protest imagined abuses by prison guards. The court, reconciling conflicting provisions of California law, upheld the appointment of a conservator to make treatment decisions because the patient could not participate in those decisions “by means of a rational (...) thought process.” However, in tying mental capacity to the plausibility of a protestor’s claims, the court risks placing political dissent at the mercy of judicial discretion. (shrink)