Wednesday, August 19, 2015

Hunger Strikes and Force Feeding

The world media is, as usual, distorting the question of force feeding hunger strikers, so I think the following points should be made:-

1. Hunger strikes, particularly those undertaken for political reasons, pose a challenge to any democracy. On the one hand, governments have the responsibility to protect the life and health of those in their custody. On the other hand, they are reluctant to undermine an individual’s decision to refuse food as a method of protest.

2. Israel has faced this dilemma for several years now. Periodically, inmates in Israeli custody - particularly administrative detainees held on terrorism charges - choose to undergo hunger strikes, occasionally for extended periods. Their goal is not to end their lives, but rather to exploit their condition and the subsequent publicity they receive to generate pressure on Israeli authorities to release them, thereby facilitating their return to terrorist activities.

3. The matter has again come to the public’s awareness following the extended hunger strike of Muhammad Allan, a detainee from the Islamic Jihad terrorist organization. Allan, previously convicted of recruiting a suicide terrorist, is currently held in administrative detention for planning large-scale terrorist attacks with fellow Islamic Jihad terrorists.   

4. The issue has gained particular attention due to a recent amendment to Israel’s Prison Ordinance ("Preventing Damage from Hunger Strikes”), which aims to resolve the matter in a manner that balances a person’s desire for autonomy over his/her body with the government’s duty to safeguard the health of persons in its custody.

The amendment establishes a mechanism that allows for the administration of non-consensual life-saving medical treatment in certain and highly limited circumstances, under strict legal and medical control. The mechanism includes a decision by a senior judge (a District Court President or Deputy President), on the basis of the independent medical opinions of the detainee's treating physician and a medical ethics board, and following a hearing with the detainee's attorney. The law clearly states that the administered treatment must be the minimal treatment necessary to preserve the life of the hunger striker or to prevent severe irreversible disability, while maintaining the utmost respect for his personal dignity and preventing unnecessary suffering. 

Additionally, it should be noted that all hunger strikers receive regular visits by the International Red Cross, as well as by personal attorneys and private physicians, when requested by the detainees in accordance with the law.

5. The amendment accords with international law norms. There are many views regarding this issue in the international arena. In fact, the administration of artificial nutrition to prisoners, against their wishes, is permissible in a number of Western countries.

In this context, it is important to note several rulings of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), especially a 2005 decision (Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, Para. 94) which permits even force-feeding prisoners in certain circumstances. A similar ruling was given by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the 2006 Vojislav Seselj case. Both of these tribunals, in line with the new amendment, recognize the obligation of the state to safeguard the health and life of hunger strikers while balancing this commitment with the prisoners' rights.

6. While the amendment‘s goal is to save lives, attempts are currently being made to misrepresent it.

Opponents to the law are attempting to portray it as being equivalent to forced feeding through a feeding tube administered without painkilling measures. This is not the case. The life-saving treatments available under the law include regular medical procedures such as the intravenous administration of total parenteral nutrition (TPN), widely used for patients - including children - who cannot consume a diet in the regular manner.

Previously-existing legislation also gives physicians the right to consider other necessary medical procedures, such as performing blood and urine tests and dispensing medications and salts.

Any treatment or test must be done in a manner consistent with a doctor’s ethical obligations, including the proper use of pain management methods. The law does not instruct doctors what to do – any treatment is subject to the medical and ethical judgement of the treating physician. What it does do is give the medical community the authority to save the lives of hunger strikers. A similar authority traditionally exists in the case of individuals who want to commit suicide or who suffer from diseases such as anorexia, and who reach a life-threatening condition.   


judith nusbaum said...

perhaps, we would be smart to consider the pros and cons of administration first?

Haifa Diarist said...

Administrative detention is being reviewed by the Supreme court but in principle it is legal according to international norms.

Roxanne Questi said...

He is eating publicity. If the media ignored him, he wouldn't make an impression either way. And BTW, I don't care what happens to him.