SpringerLink
Log in

Guantanamo and Its Specific Biopolitical Charge

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Guantanamo and Other Cases of Enforced Medical Treatment

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Ethics ((BRIEFSETHIC))

  • 357 Accesses

Abstract

After having looked at a number of controversial Hunger Strikes from all over the globe, in this final part of the book the analysis will be devoted to possibly the most [in]famous detention centre on the planet: Guantánamo Bay (Guantanamo). There are three main reasons for which the specificity of Hunger Strikes and enforced medical treatment in Guantanamo deserve a separate and conclusive chapter: first, its symbolic power is evident, demanding for an engagement (critical or supportive) from anyone willing to deepen their understanding of the problems concerning Hunger Strikes, force-feeding and enforced medical treatment. Second, the way in which the US exercise their sovereignty over Guantanamo (due to its geographical and political specific status within US law) is unique and worthy of consideration.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
EUR 29.95
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
EUR 42.79
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
EUR 53.49
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    World Medical Association. Declaration of Malta on Hunger Strikers. Op. Cit.

  2. 2.

    World Medical Association. Declaration of Malta on Hunger Strikers, Op. Cit. My emphasis.

  3. 3.

    It is not the intention of this work to criticise the notion of vulnerability per se. Works such as Robert Goodin’s influential book Protecting the Vulnerable: A Reanalysis of Our Social Responsibilities for example, are to be considered valuable and praiseworthy enterprises that have contributed (and can still contribute) to an improvement of the human condition and the progress of humanity, but doubts remain over the use of the notion made here. While in Goodin’s account vulnerability is used also as a tool to criticise a too individualistic version of autonomy, in the UNESCO International Bioethics Committee report, vulnerability is used to reinforce the polarised conceptualisation of the sanctity of life versus individual autonomy dualism that this chapter refutes. Goodin (1985).

  4. 4.

    UNESCO (2013).

  5. 5.

    Human dignity and human rights being the main two.

  6. 6.

    UNESCO International Bioethics Committee, Report on the Principle of Respect for Human Vulnerability and Personal Integrity, Op. Cit.

  7. 7.

    Exploring the concept of vulnerability goes beyond the scope of this work, but a quote from Yechiel Michael Barilan nicely captures the essence of my point here: “In technologically advanced societies, all people, but especially those who depend on others, are vulnerable to subtle or even unintended forms of exploitation and harm. Religions, social, and cultural practices whose goal is the protection of the vulnerable are also sources of vulnerability and abuse—especially of women and gay people. Numerous children have been sexually molested by clergymen who abused religious authority and infrastructure. The advent of nuclear power and mounting concerns about possible environmental disasters have prompted scientists and ethicists to underscore the vulnerability of the human race and its supportive ecosystem as a whole. The discipline of bioethics was born out of such concerns.” Barilan (2012, p. 141).

  8. 8.

    Filc et al. (2014, p. 230).

  9. 9.

    World Medical Association. Declaration of Malta on Hunger Strikers, Op. Cit.

  10. 10.

    CIA (2014).

  11. 11.

    UN (1984).

  12. 12.

    I discuss more specifically the definition of torture and its link with Guantanamo elsewhere: Garasic (2015).

  13. 13.

    Hamdan v Rumsfeld (2004).

  14. 14.

    Neuman (1996, p. 1197).

  15. 15.

    Butler (2004, pp. 50–100).

  16. 16.

    Agamben and Raulff (2004).

  17. 17.

    Ibid.

  18. 18.

    Schmitt (1996).

  19. 19.

    Johns (2005, pp. 613–635).

  20. 20.

    Ibid, p. 635.

  21. 21.

    Annas et al. (2013, pp. 101–103).

  22. 22.

    Gross (2013, pp. 103–105).

  23. 23.

    Annas, G., Sondra S. Crosby, M.D., and Leonard H. Glantz, Op. Cit.

  24. 24.

    See for example: Guantanamo: Medical Ethics Free Zone (2013); Leopold (2013); Moqbel (2013).

  25. 25.

    Jotterand (2005, pp. 107–128).

  26. 26.

    Nevmerzhitsky v Ukraine, Op. Cit. This has been a landmark case in which the European Court of Human Rights condemned the Ukrainian Government for having breached a number of articles of the European Convention on Human Rights. In particular, it was established that force-feeding a prisoner can be considered torture.

  27. 27.

    This case had a particularly strong political connotation that makes the assessment of torture very evident, but in other instances the involvement of doctors aiming at not abandoning a patient gives rise to a medical dilemma that we cannot cover here. For an insightful analysis of this dimension of the problem see: Lepora and Millum (2011, pp. 235–254).

  28. 28.

    See footnote 24 in Chap. 4.

  29. 29.

    Fessler (2003, pp. 243–247).

  30. 30.

    See footnote 27 and 33 in Chap. 2.

  31. 31.

    Smith (2008, pp. 257–262).

  32. 32.

    Of course, for all these techniques (naso-gastric treatment or percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy for instance) to not be considered torture, the individual would have to consent in being fed in the first place, else he or she would remove the tube by their own means. If she or he shall be prevented from doing so, limitation of movement, coercion and force would be required. Thus, those methods of feeding could also be considered as torture. However, my point is that the level of burden of such enforced medical treatment would be much less invasive in psychological terms, and—to an extent—more in line with the claim that the applied coercion is in truth used only for the patient’s best interest.

  33. 33.

    Gross, M., L., Op. Cit.

  34. 34.

    Sugarman and Sulmasy (2010a).

  35. 35.

    There are numerous scenarios in which a consistent consideration of the pleas of the hunger strikers is not feasible. For instance: if I was to hunger strike to have my time in prison reduced by half, would it change if I had been sentenced to 30 or 5 years? Surely it would in strict mathematical terms: 15 against 2 and a half years of reduced prison time. And if a group starts hunger striking to have their prison cells’ conditions improved, how should authorities respond? It seems logical (and morally sound) that those conditions could be improved only by including also the non-hunger strikers –hence implicitly admitting the legitimacy of the protest in the first place.

  36. 36.

    Maclean (2009, p. 12).

  37. 37.

    Dworkin, R., Op. Cit.

  38. 38.

    World Medical Association. Declaration of Malta on Hunger Strikers, Op. Cit.

  39. 39.

    See footnote 31 above.

  40. 40.

    Mercurio (2008, pp. 44–57).

  41. 41.

    Le Marvan and Stock (2005, p. 514).

  42. 42.

    Kant., I., Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Op. Cit., p. 36.

  43. 43.

    Mercurio, M., R., Op. Cit, p. 49.

  44. 44.

    Prominent scholars such as Peter Singer and Frances Kamm have argued that torture can be morally justified under certain (rare) circumstances. However, speculating over the acceptability of such a stand is not relevant for the present investigation, because if that argument were to be applied to Guantanamo the whole idea of force-feeding the detainees in their best interest would become redundant, as we would be enforcing medical treatment solely for the purpose of withdrawing sensitive information. Singer (2010); Kamm (2011).

  45. 45.

    “As described in the context of the rectal feeding of al-Nashiri, [food] was infused into al-Nashiri ‘in a forward-facing position (Trendlenberg) with head lower than torso.’ […] Majid Khan’s ‘lunch’s tray’, consisting of hummus, pasta with sauce, nuts, and raisins was ‘pureed’ and rectally infused.” CIA, Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency's Detention and Interrogation Program, Op. Cit, p. 100.

  46. 46.

    The force-feeding of suffragettes in Britain and France is a widely known for example. See amongst others: Miller (2009).

  47. 47.

    Jonsen (1998, p. 346).

  48. 48.

    McGee (2003). This view is emphasised particularly strongly in the introduction, but it is present throughout the book.

  49. 49.

    Taylor (2009, p. 64).

References

  • Agamben, G., and U. Raulff. 2004. Interview with Giorgio Agamben—life, a work of art without an author: the state of exception, the administration of disorder and private life. German Law Journal 5. http://www.germanlawjournal.com/index.php?pageID=11&artID=437. Accessed 4 Jan 2015.

  • Annas, G., S. Sondra, M.D. Crosby, and L.H. Glantz. 2013. Guantanamo Bay: a medical ethics–free zone? The New England Journal of Medicine 369(2): 101–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barilan, Y.M. 2012. Human dignity, human rights, and responsibility. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. 2004. Indefinite detention. In Precarious life. The powers of mourning and violence, ed. J. Butler, 50–100. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • CIA. 2014. Committee study of the central intelligence agency’s detention and interrogation program. http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2014_rpt/ssci-rdi.pdf. Accessed 4 Jan 2015.

  • Fessler, D.M.T. 2003. The implications of starvation induced psychological changes for the ethical treatment of hunger strikers. Journal of Medical Ethics 29(4):243–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Filc, D., H. Haddas Ziv, M. Nassar, and N. Davidovitch. 2014. Palestinian prisoners’ hunger-strikes in Israeli prisons: beyond the dual-loyalty dilemma in medical practice and patient care. Public Health Ethics 7(3): 229–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garasic, M.D. 2015. Torture. In Encyclopedia of global bioethics. New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-05544-2_420-1.

  • Goodin, R. 1985. Protecting the vulnerable: a reanalysis of our social responsibilities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross, M.L. 2013. Force-feeding, autonomy, and the public interest. The New England Journal of Medicine 369(2): 103–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guantanamo: Medical Ethics Free Zone. 2013. Russia Today. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y77OOY3UJ1Y. Accessed 4 Jan 2015.

  • Hamdan v Rumsfeld. 2004. U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22724, at 21–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johns, F. 2005. Guantanamo Bay and the annihilation of the exception. The European Journal of International Law 16(4): 613–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonsen, A. 1998. The birth of bioethics, 346. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jotterand, F. 2005. The Hippocratic oath and contemporary medicine: dialectic between past ideals and present reality? Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 30: 107–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamm, F.M. 2011. Ethics for enemies: terror, torture and war. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Marvan, P., and B. Stock. 2005. Medical learning curves and the Kantian ideal. Journal of Medical Ethics 31: 514.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leopold, J. 2013. Revised Guantanamo force-feed policy exposed. Al Jazeera. http://www.aljazeera.com/humanrights/2013/05/201358152317954140.html.

  • Lepora, C., and J. Millum. 2011. The tortured patient: a medical dilemma. Asian Bioethics Review 3(3): 235–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maclean, A. 2009. Autonomy, informed consent and medical law, 12. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McGee, G. (ed.). 2003. Pragmatic bioethics. Cambridge: MIT press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercurio, M.R. 2008. An analysis of candidate ethical justifications for allowing inexperienced physicians-in-training to perform invasive procedures. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 33: 44–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, I. 2009. Necessary torture? vivisection, suffragette force-feeding, and responses to scientific medicine in Britain c. 1870–1920. Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences. doi:10.1093/jhmas/jrp008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moqbel, S.N.A.H. 2013. Gitmo is killing me. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/opinion/hunger-striking-at-guantanamo-bay.html?_r=0. Accessed 4 Jan 2015.

  • Neuman, G.L. 1996. Anomalous zones. Stanford Law Review 48:1128–1233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, C. 1996. The Concept of the Political. Trans. T.B. Strong. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, P. 2010. The life you can save: acting now to end world poverty. Melbourne : Text Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D.L. 2008. A nocturnal nasogastric feeding programme in cystic fibrosis adults. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics 7(4): 257–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sugarman, J., and D.P. Sulmasy. 2010a. The many methods of medical ethics (or, thirteen ways of looking at a blackbird. In Methods in medical ethics, ed. J. Sugarman, and D.P. Sulmasy. Washington: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, J.S. 2009. Practical autonomy in bioethics, p. 64. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN. 1984. Convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CAT.aspx. Accessed 4 Jan 2015.

  • UNESCO. 2013. International bioethics committee. Report on the principle of respect for human vulnerability and personal integrity. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002194/219494E.pdf. Accessed 4 Jan 2015.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics , Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Mirko Daniel Garasic

Authors
  1. Mirko Daniel Garasic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mirko Daniel Garasic .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Garasic, M.D. (2015). Guantanamo and Its Specific Biopolitical Charge. In: Guantanamo and Other Cases of Enforced Medical Treatment. SpringerBriefs in Ethics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22653-8_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation