Expert answer:I need someone to help me revise my ethic’s paper:
Answer & Explanation:Here’s the link to the paper201512211421302015122113595320151221095203nonfin_paper.doc and here’s a link to essentially the same thing, but i made a few changes to the odd wording in some spots as you’ll see (done by another tutor, not me)ok save.doc Essentially I want to get this research paper on ethic issues, mine was the medical unethicality of force feeding prisoners at guananamo bay for my freshman ethics class, completely ready to be handed in. So as you’ll see there’s many little continuity errors that need to be fixed, as well as some grammatical errors. Also just do what you need to do to make is sound overall more clear and concise, because that’s my biggest worry as of now. Also, if you could, improve on the text in general to make it sound polished, so feel free to add anything you feel would improve it’s quality. Thanks again!
201512211421302015122113595320151221095203nonfin_paper.doc
ok_save.doc
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Your Last Name
1
Your Name
Professor Name
Class
21 December 2015
Force Feeding Prisoners in Guantanamo Bay
At the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp, many mentally competent prisoners who
practice hunger strikes are force fed. There is strong evidence which shows that the medical
professionals, who should be following The International Code of Medical Ethics, are not doing
so at Guantanamo. My believe is that force feeding any mentally competent human being is a
form of torture that is extremely fallacious and unethical, and the purpose of this paper is to
highlight to ethical problems that come with force feeding. The paper concludes that many of the
ethics provided within the international Code of Medical Ethics and the Declaration of Malta are
clearly being violated at the Guantanamo Bay detention center.
First of all, I believe that is important to have a clear idea what hunger strikes mean.
According to most definitions, a hunger strike is a form of protest in which discontent is
communicated through voluntary self-starvation. Over the years, whether in Israel or the Ireland,
hunger strikes have been perceived to be a political weapon applied by prisoners thought to be
powerless.
At the military detention center in the Guantánamo Bay, hunger strikes are being used by
the detainees to protest their confinement and the fact that the guards are improperly handling the
FORCE FEEDING PRISONERS IN GUANTANAMO BAY
2
prisoners during the search process. According to abundant research literature, these prisoners
are not allowed to starve themselves, as they are forced feed twice a day. Force-feeding is
realized with the help of medical tubes that are forcedly inserted in the protesters’ throats, where
they receive hot meals or liquids while they are being trapped on chairs.
It seems obvious that force-feeding is practiced because it is considered that it prevents
prisoners from dying. Some might even compare this procedure to the procedures that are used to
save those who attempt suicide. Nevertheless, force-starvations pose some ethical concerns that
do not exist in other forced interventions that are meant to save life.
Among the ethical concerns that come with force-feeding, the medical ethical codes are
likely the most relevant. As any physician who follows The International Code of Medical Ethics
likely knows, it seems more ethical to let a determined hunger striker to die in dignity instead of
submitting such a person to the repeated force-feeding, as doing so means going against the
individual’s will and choice.
At the Guantanamo Bay detention center, prisoners are forced to feed through the use of
procedures that clearly violate the international Code of Medical Ethics, as it has been testified
by several medical professionals. If the prisoners were only being feed when it was medically
though to be necessary, the act of force-feeding would have sound more ethical from a medical
point of view. As noticed by Doctor Miles, while medical professionals at the Guantanamo Bay
use olive oil as a lubricant for forced-feeding, the use of the feeding tube presents a potential risk
for the development of pneumonia. This is just one of the things that precisely violate the
international Code of Medical Ethics. The ethical concerns of forced-feeding are further
FORCE FEEDING PRISONERS IN GUANTANAMO BAY
3
complicated if the detainee resist it, as the doctors then must insert the medical tubes by force,
which makes their insertion extremely painful. It is worth mentioning that the pain experienced
increases every time the food is pumped again through the tubes. The procedure can also worsen
previous nasopharyngeal injuries, and can also increase the risk for more serious esophageal
trauma encompassing the perforations. Since the procedure is carried out blindly, there is no
form of visualization used and this method has the potential to result into inability to confirm the
precise location of the tubes. More so, there is lack of plain film radiographs that are used in
hospital settings to confirm the termination point of the tubes (Japotosky, “ Guantanamo Bay
Detainee Force-feeding Case Continues.” ).
The Declaration of Malta, on the other hand, also says that it is up to the person to
determine whether they will ingest the food or not. Under this declaration, it is stated that the
forcible feeding of the mentally competent individual by coercion, threat, physical restraint, or
force is a form of inhuman and degrading treatment. The declaration focuses on setting the same
types of ethical consideration that were already set in the Helsinki document, which says that a
physician must not harm an individual. These are the same ethical considerations that are
normally into account when conducting a research with humans, as these ethical considerations
focuses on the importance of informed consent, which clearly isn’t given by prisoners at the
Guantanamo Bay military detention. When considering the provisions of the Declaration of
Malta, it seems clear that the physicians practicing at the Guantanamo Bay do not carry out their
duties to the best interest of their patients, and completely disregard individuals’ right to
informed consent. The doctors cannot physically force-feed mentally competent hunger strikers,
yet, at Guantanamo, it is clear that this principle has been severely and continuously violated.
FORCE FEEDING PRISONERS IN GUANTANAMO BAY
4
The ethical standards that all health care providers should follow put a special emphasis
on the mutual trust between practitioners and patients, and on the obligation of practitioners to
provide the same services to all individuals. At Guantanamo, the detainees’ trust has been
irrevocably damaged by the physician’s involvement in interrogations as well as by the
application of restrain chairs. While it is clear that physicians may not ethically force prisoners to
receive a treatment, they do have the duty to continue providing prisoners with medical benefits
and care; this consideration also applies to the consenting prisoner hunger strikers at the
Guantanamo Bay. The care given by health providers should not only focus on treating certain
medical conditions, but also on identifying the mental competence of the strikers. This is aimed
at ensuring that there is no form of force of coercion involved. Moreover, the physicians are
required to determine if the strikers want to accept the voluntary feeding so as to continue with
the strike without increasing the risk of dying or getting sick. However, at Guantanamo Bay,
there is a totally different scenario; the actions of health providers violate all these principles
(Annas, et al., “Guantanamo Bay: A Medical Ethics–free Zone?”).
When debating the issue of forced-feeding at Guantanamo, most arguments are done
from a medical perspective. It is obvious that doctors working at the Guantanamo Bay are simply
following orders, even when these orders contradict their ethical codes. The Guantanamo
officials seem to have continually sought to make hunger striking a medical issue. Under the
Department of Defense, in the event of a hunger strike or an attempted suicide, medical
intervention or treatment can be directed without the consent of the detainees, with the argument
that this measure prevents any serious harm or death. Conversely, this policy mistakenly
associates hunger striking with suicide. The act of the prisoner to go on a hunger strike is not an
FORCE FEEDING PRISONERS IN GUANTANAMO BAY
5
attempt to commit suicide; instead these individuals are willing to put their lives at death risk in
the case that their demand is not meet. A medical professional should be able to discern when to
intervene. These interventions arguably pose a barrier for the prisoners to address what they
perceive to be an injustice.
However, some people might disagree to some of my arguments. For example, it has
been argued that military physicians have an obligation to adhere to different medical standards
in comparison to civilian physicians. For instance, it is a requirement that any military officerwhether ordinary or medical- must obey the orders given by the commanders, even when this
means violating the medical ethics. Under this consideration, it seems that it is the duty of the
physician to force-feed the prisoners as commanded by the superiors. Under this philosophy,
forced- feeding is justified because it is conducted for the best interest of the prisoner. In other
words, the physician is used as a weapon for maintaining order within the prison settings. The
principle of beneficent also comes to play, meaning that the doctors are required to maintain the
health of prisoners. In the same regard, the physician should prioritize the safety of the prisoners
in hunger strike. As such, the doctors are being asked to promote the principle of beneficence.
The proponents of this approach also hold that principle of justice must be observed. Under this
principle, working for the greater justice could involve solitary confinement, meaning that the
priority, as well as the welfare of the prisoners, comes first, even if that means not allowing them
to engage in voluntary starvation (Crosby et al., “Hunger strikes, force-feeding, and physicians’
responsibilities”).
In conclusion, hunger strike is conducted by the prisoners as a form of expressing their
grievances. However, at the Guantánamo Bay, the detainees are being forced to feed while they
FORCE FEEDING PRISONERS IN GUANTANAMO BAY
6
are trapped into a chair. Force-feeding for any person that is mentally competent is an unethical
practice, as it is reflected both by the international Code of Medical Ethics, and by the
Declaration of Malta, among others. The international Code of Medical Ethics insists on the
importance that the patient’s best interest comes as a priority, while the Declaration of Malta
recognizes individuals’ right to protest trough starvation. While some argue that military
physicians should follow a different code of medical ethics, nobody can argue that the provisions
included in the Declaration of Malta can be violated for military interests. It should be clear by
now that forced-feeding should cease, as it is a form of extreme torture, fallacious, as well as
medically unethical.
FORCE FEEDING PRISONERS IN GUANTANAMO BAY
7
Works Cited
Annas, George J., Sondra S. Crosby, and Leonard H. Glantz. “Guantanamo Bay: A Medical
Ethics–free Zone?.” New England Journal of Medicine 369.2 (2013): 101-103.
(Annas, et al., “Guantanamo Bay: A Medical Ethics–free Zone?”)
Crosby, Sondra S., Caroline M. Apovian, and Michael A. Grodin. “Hunger strikes, force-feeding,
and physicians’ responsibilities.” JAMA 298.5 (2007): 563-566.
Japotosky, Matt. “Guantanamo Bay Detainee Force-feeding Case Continues.” Washington Post.
The Washington Post, 07 Oct. 2014. Web. 21 Dec. 2015.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/guantanamo-bay-detainee
force-feeding-case-continues/2014/10/07/04544bb2-4e52-11e4-aa5e
7153e466a02d_story.html
(Japotosky, “ Guantanamo Bay Detainee Force-feeding Case Continues.” )
Your Name
Professor Name
Class
21 December 2015
Force Feeding Prisoners in Guantanamo Bay
At the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp, many mentally competent prisoners who
practice hunger strikes are force fed. There is strong evidence which shows that the medical
professionals, who should be following The International Code of Medical Ethics, are not doing
so at Guantanamo. I believe that force feeding any mentally competent human being is a form of
torture as well as being extremely fallacious and unethical. The purpose of this paper is to
highlight to ethical problems that come with force feeding. The paper concludes that many of the
ethics provided within the international Code of Medical Ethics and the Declaration of Malta are
clearly being violated at the Guantanamo Bay detention center.
First of all, I believe that it’s important to have a clear idea what a hungar strike is.
According to most definitions, a hunger strike is a form of protest in which discontent is
communicated through voluntary self-starvation. Over the years, whether in Israel or Ireland,
hunger strikes have been perceived to be a political weapon applied by prisoners thought to be
powerless.
At the military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, hunger strikes are being used by the
detainees to protest their confinement and the fact that the guards are improperly handling the
prisoners during the search process. According to abundant research literature, these prisoners
FORCE FEEDING PRISONERS IN GUANTANAMO BAY
2
are not allowed to starve themselves, as they are forced fed twice a day. Force-feeding is done so
with medical tubes that are forcefully inserted in the protesters’ throats, where they receive hot
meals or liquids while they are being restrained to a chair.
Though it’s medically unethical in this context, force feeding is not unethical in itself. In
fact, it saves lives. It in fact does save many lives from malnutrition. Nevertheless, forcestarvations pose some ethical concerns that do not exist in other forced interventions that are
meant to save life.
Among the ethical concerns that come with force-feeding, the medical ethical codes are
likely the most relevant. As any physician who follows The International Code of Medical Ethics
likely knows, it seems more ethical to let a determined hunger striker to die in dignity instead of
submitting such a person to the repeated force-feeding, as doing so means going against the
individual’s will and choice.
At the Guantanamo Bay detention center, prisoners are forced to feed through the use of
procedures that clearly violate the international Code of Medical Ethics, as it has been testified
by several medical professionals. If the prisoners were only being feed when it was medically
though to be necessary, the act of force-feeding would have sound more ethical from a medical
point of view. As noticed by Doctor Miles, while medical professionals at the Guantanamo Bay
use olive oil as a lubricant for forced-feeding, the use of the feeding tube presents a potential risk
for the development of pneumonia. This is just one of the things that precisely violate the
international Code of Medical Ethics. The ethical concerns of forced-feeding are further
complicated if the detainee resist it, as the doctors then must insert the medical tubes by force,
FORCE FEEDING PRISONERS IN GUANTANAMO BAY
3
which makes their insertion extremely painful. It is worth mentioning that the pain experienced
increases every time the food is pumped again through the tubes. The procedure can also worsen
previous nasopharyngeal injuries, and can also increase the risk for more serious esophageal
trauma encompassing the perforations. Since the procedure is carried out blindly, there is no
form of visualization used and this method has the potential to result into inability to confirm the
precise location of the tubes. More so, there is lack of plain film radiographs that are used in
hospital settings to confirm the termination point of the tubes (Japotosky, “ Guantanamo Bay
Detainee Force-feeding Case Continues.” ).
The Declaration of Malta, on the other hand, also says that it is up to the person to
determine whether they will ingest the food or not. Under this declaration, it is stated that the
forcible feeding of the mentally competent individual by coercion, threat, physical restraint, or
force is a form of inhuman and degrading treatment. The declaration focuses on setting the same
types of ethical consideration that were already set in the Helsinki document, which says that a
physician must not harm an individual. These are the same ethical considerations that are
normally into account when conducting a research with humans, as these ethical considerations
focuses on the importance of informed consent, which clearly isn’t given by prisoners at the
Guantanamo Bay military detention. When considering the provisions of the Declaration of
Malta, it seems clear that the physicians practicing at the Guantanamo Bay do not carry out their
duties to the best interest of their patients, and completely disregard individuals’ right to
informed consent. The doctors cannot physically force-feed mentally competent hunger strikers,
yet, at Guantanamo, it is clear that this principle has been severely and continuously violated.
FORCE FEEDING PRISONERS IN GUANTANAMO BAY
4
The ethical standards that all health care providers should follow put a special emphasis
on the mutual trust between practitioners and patients, and on the obligation of practitioners to
provide the same services to all individuals. At Guantanamo, the detainees’ trust has been
irrevocably damaged by the physician’s involvement in interrogations as well as by the
application of restrain chairs. While it is clear that physicians may not ethically force prisoners to
receive a treatment, they do have the duty to continue providing prisoners with medical benefits
and care; this consideration also applies to the consenting prisoner hunger strikers at the
Guantanamo Bay. The care given by health providers should not only focus on treating certain
medical conditions, but also on identifying the mental competence of the strikers. This is aimed
at ensuring that there is no form of force of coercion involved. Moreover, the physicians are
required to determine if the strikers want to accept the voluntary feeding so as to continue with
the strike without increasing the risk of dying or getting sick. However, at Guantanamo Bay,
there is a totally different scenario; the actions of health providers violate all these principles
(Annas, et al., “Guantanamo Bay: A Medical Ethics–free Zone?”).
When debating the issue of forced-feeding at Guantanamo, most arguments are done
from a medical perspective. It is obvious that doctors working at the Guantanamo Bay are simply
following orders, even when these orders contradict their ethical codes. The Guantanamo
officials seem to have continually sought to make hunger striking a medical issue. Under the
Department of Defense, in the event of a hunger strike or an attempted suicide, medical
intervention or treatment can be directed without the consent of the detainees, with the argument
that this measure prevents any serious harm or death. Conversely, this policy mistakenly
associates hunger striking with suicide. The act of the prisoner to go on a hunger strike is not an
FORCE FEEDING PRISONERS IN GUANTANAMO BAY
5
attempt to commit suicide; instead these individuals are willing to put their lives at death risk in
the case that their demand is not meet. A medical professional should be able to discern when to
intervene. These interventions arguably pose a barrier for the prisoners to address what they
perceive to be an injustice.
However, some people might disagree to some of my arguments. For example, it has
been argued that military physicians have an obligation to adhere to different medical standards
in comparison to civilian physicians. For instance, it is a requirement that any military officerwhether ordinary or medical- must obey the orders given by the commanders, even when this
means violating the medical ethics. Under this consideration, it seems that it is the duty of the
physician to force-feed the prisoners as commanded by the superiors. Under this philosophy,
forced- feeding is justified because it is conducted for the best interest of the prisoner. In other
words, the physician is used as a weapon for maintaining order within the prison settings. The
principle of beneficent also comes to play, meaning that the doctors are required to maintain the
health of prisoners. In the same regard, the physician should prioritize the safety of the prisoners
in hunger strike. As such, the doctors are being asked to promote the principle of beneficenc …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
How it works
- Paste your instructions in the instructions box. You can also attach an instructions file
- Select the writer category, deadline, education level and review the instructions
- Make a payment for the order to be assignment to a writer
- Download the paper after the writer uploads it
Will the writer plagiarize my essay?
You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.
Is this service safe?
All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades