What do you call it when an ostensibly medical procedure is carried out in such a manner as to deliberately maximize the infliction of pain? How about just with sheer indifference to the will of the subject and the corollary pain, physical damage, anguish, and degradation?
Huh. Missed that on Oz.
Let us consider the UN definition of torture from:
“…any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.”
Now, given that the person concerned has refused consent to undergo a medical procedure (force feeding) and js competent to deny such consent, the force feeding must have another aim other than medical treatment as medical treatment must be consented.
Although it is a technique used in valid medical interventions it is being used to coerce and intimidate him and others to end their hunger strike to the benefit of the state by avoiding condemnation over the starving to death as a political statement.
When used in such a manner it is torture by the most widely used definition of torture.
I am now assuming that given no-one has produced any evidence from the Press or other articles on the subject that within the Western World, the USA is the only country to force feed competent prisoners.
No cite for a positive contention, no proof can be claimed.
I’d call it unsubstantiated and unlikely.
Not really a good source for what goes on in prisons.
It’s kept me on the straight and narrow. Or at least made me discrete. IMDB gives it 8.9/10.
For some reason, IMDB doesn’t rate any of the prisons I work at. 
I suppose this thread just goes to show how holding an extreme view can blank out reason completely.
Almost every legal and moral authority valued in Western Democracies holds that force feeding is torture. Only one country currently engages in it. But they still claim the moral high ground. Interesting.
If that occurs, it should be a criminal offence under any circumstances, not just force feeding.
That may sometimes be necessary, as long as the pain, damage, anguish and degradation are minimised. Sometimes it’s required for medical professionals to treat people against their will - especially children. Do you think they should be “protected” from life-saving treatment because of side-effects?
Dr. Nathan?
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report is unsubstantiated?
The practices condemned by the UN Human Rights Commission, the International Red Cross, and the World Medical Association are unlikely?
That has been dealt with by the doctrines of necessity and autonomy. You should have studied medical ethics before emoting your unsupported opinions.
Can you point to the part of that report where it says that authorities intentionally made forced feeding more painful than necessary? Which is the claim you made (“an ostensibly medical procedure is carried out in such a manner as to deliberately maximize the infliction of pain”) and which I was questioning.
The thing that makes it painful is the simple act of doing it against an actively reacting person.
There is no requirement for an act to be of different nature from a legal act to make it torture.
Torture js simply the application of pain with the intention of changing behaviour of a competent person without consent.
If someone is not competent then consent cannot be achieved and the doctrine of necessity can be invoked. The doctrine of necessity does not apply to those people capable of giving consent should they withhold it.
This is why force feeding of a competent person who withholds consent is regarded universally as at least assault and can be seen as torture.
There is no requirement there that I can see.
So you’re disagreeing with Peremensoe’s claim that authorities are intentionally making involuntary forced feeding more painful than necessary? I’m trying to keep it straight which of you is making which claims.
I agree that forced feeding can be painful. And the fact that the subject is resisting may make it more painful.
But here’s what I disagree with. I don’t agree with Peremensoe’s claim that authorities are intentionally making it more painful than necessary (this claim has been made but I feel it is not substantiated). I don’t agree with the claim that a painful but necessary medical procedure is torture. And I don’t agree that preserving a prisoner’s right of autonomy is necessarily more moral than preserving the life and physical well-being of that prisoner.
The evidence from Guantanamo is that the manner in which force feeding is carried out is designed to make it as uncomfortable as possible as behaviour modification.
The evidence from Israeli and UK prisons shows the same.
I suspect that this may also apply to the use of it in US prisons, although maybe they are especially caring?
Police killer currently on hunger strike for thirty days in UK jail. No force feeding will be used as it is illegal for people with capacity.
He is a narcissistic PD and a diagnosed sociopath. He is being quite clever because he is demanding a transfer from prison to a secure hospital because of his mental disorder, but if he has a mental disorder resulting in incapacity then he could be force fed against his will; I suspect he is aware of the double bind this creates for the prison authorities.
Hopefully he just (painfully) starves to death since he isn’t part of a larger cause that might provoke/“inspire” future terrorist attack.
Wishing a painful death on anyone says more about your moral compass than his.