Close the place already.
Link is to a disturbing 3 minute video on Dailymotion that has a volunteer undergo the procedure. The full procedure takes two hours. This is the poster’s comment:
Twice a day for months? That a human would undergo such torture speaks to the captives’ desperation.
Link:
Tube feeding is a standard medical procedure for people who can’t or won’t eat. I wouldn’t call it torture, but it is very unpleasant. I’ve known a lot of people who had to have it.
I agree that GB should be closed. What a hellhole of depravity.
Oh, the horror! :rolleyes:
I don’t like Guantanamo, but I don’t think the solution is to let the prisoners starve.
The idea that a medical doctor would force a procedure on an unwilling adult is abhorrent to me, and from what I’ve read to much of the medical community as well. Is there a doctor in the house who can address the ethics here?
Everything that happens in a prison involves unwilling adults.
But check out the link in post #3, and understand that it’s just a standard medical procedure.
It’s gross, like lots of medical stuff. But not abusive…
Would you be as outraged if Fox News showed us close-ups of , say, abortion clinics at work?
You definitely don’t want to watch footage of most kinds of surgeries. Those look freaking brutal.
That being said, we do have a prison doctor around here, so we’ll see if he wanders in and cares to comment.
If the recipients of the procedure did not want the procedure done? Hell ya.
ETA: Why Doctors Oppose Force-Feeding Guantanamo Hunger Strikers
Are you truly so fucking stupid that you can’t see the differences? I mean no disrespect by that, if you truly are that stupid then it must be congenital and I shouldn’t mock you for it.
Do you honestly believe that these prisoners are being: sat down in a comfortable chair, treated with the gentility that one might show oneself, given the luxury of lube and drinking / rinsing water water.
Now, this might seem a strange analogy, but since you seem hooked on the scatological I’ll meet you on your floor.
Getting assfucked, I’m told, can very between pleasant and somewhat uncomfortable when it is done consensually. I’ve yet to hear of anyone saying getting assraped was anything less than uncool.
See the difference ya fucking tool?
A medical procedure performed consensually for medically valid reasons is an entirely different creature than having an invasive procedure forced upon you against your wishes, your principle and your God.
I hope to Christ that if you have kids they end up in a cult just so they can escape the pervasive batshittery that your world seems to consist of.
TLDR
Magellan - Seriously dude? What the ever-living fuck!?!
Oh boy, a new idiot has decided to follow me around!
Look, nitwit. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t have some supposed tough guy voluntarily subjecting himself to the procedure and crying and wetting his panties trying to claim that it’s so so so so horrible when a little girl shows you clearly that it is not. And there are plenty of videos showing people going through the procedure. Do I think it’s fun? No. But it should be obvious to even you that 95% of the “horror” of this is in the person’s mine. Seriously, dude, how can you not see that? What do you need, video proof? Oh wait… :rolleyes:
That’s where I keep 95% of my horror. In my mine. The other 5% you ask? You don’t want to know.
The point that’s being missed here is clearly centred around the key word of CONSENT. Of course the mindset of the receiver is of paramount importance in how the action is percieved. Sitting comfortably and choosing to submit willingly to a procedure is one thing; having a procedure enforced upon your unwilling body is something else entirely, regardless of how invasive or painful it really is. It is akin to either making love with your SO, or being raped. Technically the same physical procedure, very different emotional response.
Bad analogy. Rape is, by definition, illegal. Force feeding of prisoners, willing or not, is not only considered the humanitarian thing to do, but would also be required if the authorities thought there was a real chance the prisoners would die.
Closing Gitmo is the right thing to do. Even if Obama could do it, it would take time. In the meantime, what does the OP suggest we do? Let the prisoners starve themselves to death? Yes, it’s “nasty business” to force feed them. Letting the die is nastier.
Poor analogy perhaps, but the main thrust of the point was that the contrast between having something forced into a bodily orifice when you are fighting the attempt and the calm acceptance of the same action is *very *different psychologically. The actual measured pain of the action, or the legality of it, don’t really lessen the profound difference between consent and non-consent, IMHO.
I personally would lean more towards allowing people the ‘dignity’ of starving themselves to death should that be their desire, but I also understand the State’s need to both ensure a ‘duty of care’ towards those deemed under their control/supervision and to avoid the potential martyring of the prisoners. It’s complicated, but the hard decisions need to be made, issues addressed or it will not end well. Okay, it can’t end well anyhow, but it can only drift towards worse.
Then why does the World Medical Association and the American Medical Association say that it “violates core ethical values of the medical profession.”?
What do they suggest prison authorities do when prisoners go on a hunger strike? Let them die?
They suggest they not force a medical procedure on them, even one as benign as nasogastric feeding.
IANAD, but I agree with their ethical stand.
At least they’d be allowed their dignity.
Why is the USA so afraid to let them die? Bad publicity? If the administration is afraid of that, then let the cleared men go and prosecute those the administration deems criminal.
One wonders how difficult this is for the guards. I’d guess any of them with even a trace of humanity in them are stressed. And I shudder to think about the guards who might enjoy this work.
I had a friend with diverticulitis/crohns/etc who was told that without partial colectomy and a colostomy he would die. His prognosis with surgery was pretty good. He declined medical intervention. Would you suggest he be forced to submit to surgery?
I believe the argument can be made that a person who believes God wants him to starve himself to death in exchange for supernatural favors in the afterlife is not “capable of forming an unimpaired and rational judgment”.