Jump to content

Talk:Force-feeding

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a medical complaint

[edit]

This page simply illustrates why Wikipedia has become an unreliable source. Gavage also refers to a method of feeding that involves use of a tube through the sinus or throat for patients who are unable to feed themselves. This is a surgical term and has nothing to do with torture or animal rights. Please include this alternate definition. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.24.143.228 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 2007 January 24

This complaint is correct. The term "gavage" definitely should not re-direct to "force-feeding" with all of its negative connotation. Gavage is a legitimate medical treatment for patients who cannot feed themselves orally, including premature infants. Sallenmd (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I also concur. I changed the redirect of "gavage" to "feeding_tube" as that term has a simple, direct correlation to "gavage" as opposed to this article's connotation. However, as this article is relevant to the topic, I also added a link from "feeding_tube" to here. --Fuzzynurse (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)fuzzynurse[reply]

Does it make sense to mix force-feeding of prisoners with the force-feeding of domestic animals?

[edit]

Should human force-feeding (e.g. suffragettes) and the animal-rearing practice really be on the same page? --Dpr 17:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In a "force-feeding" article, I believe so. Whether or not there should be a separate "force-feeding of prisoners" article is another matter, and, even so, I don't think such separate articles would be necessary. I removed the paragraph about Falun Gong. If, as it is claimed, force-feeding is practised to torture prisoners, rather than to feed them, the linked website source should substantiate that claim. However, if you would care to look for yourself, you'd see that every example given by the Falun Dafa Information Center involved the words "hunger strike", so it's evidently the case that force-feeding was used to "counter (self-)starvation", rather than for "other purposes". Given the source of this information, the Falun Dafa Information Center, and the fact that EVERY "victim" of force-feeding has claimed that there was a degree of sadism and torture, it's safe to say that this is little more than anti-communist propoganda. --213.121.151.146 07:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me the references to Gitmo are NOT NPOV. They are onesided based solely on one lawyers repeating what one prisoner said are not fact based info about Force-feeding in general. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdcb (talk • contribs) 10:43, 2006 October 13
Force-feeding of the Guantanamo captives is documented in tables published by the DoD in March 2007. When examined, in detail, some captives started having their weight recorded, weekly, or daily, rather than monthly or quarterly, when the hunger strike started. Some captives had their weights recorded multiple times per day -- during the hunger strike -- and those multiple weigh-ins show large fluctuations -- sometimes over a dozen pounds. The DoD started strapping the captives' into "restraint chairs" during and after the force-feeding in January. One captive suddenly started gaining three or four pounds a day. How many litres of nutrient would one have to stuff into a captive for him to gain that kind of weight? Burning one pound of fat consumes 3600 calories. 2000 or 3000 calories is the daily maintenance amount for a sedentary person. To gain three pounds a day the captives would have to be consuming over 10,000 calories a day. Geo Swan (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The link to Wikisource was removed with the comment:

This change removes a biased anthrocentric link.

I can't make head or tail of this objection. The link is a historical document relating to force-feeding of prisoners. How is that anthrocentric? —Celithemis 09:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irish hunger strikes

[edit]

Force feeding was never used on prisoners with Special Category Status in Northern Ireland. To tbe best of my knowledge the only times it was used on Irish republican prisoners during the Troubles was on protesting prisoners in England (SCS only applied to prisoners in Northern Ireland), who wanted transferring to Northern Ireland and/or political status. It wasn't used during the 1980 or 1981 strikes for political reasons, it was felt it would attract too much adverse publicity. One Night In Hackney303 21:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psychiatric use

[edit]

Is there any evidence that psychiatric hospitals use enteral feeding with patients who refuse to eat? Surely a drip feed is used in preference? Itsmejudith (talk) 08:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with drip/Iv feeds involve Iv sites and needles etc that patients can and do pull out and remove. This poses a problem for normal medication administration as well as for the purpose of sustenance. I think in circumstances like this a sedation would be administered and as you say a drip feed utilised as a first point of intervention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.55.20.102 (talk) 00:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not only that, but parenteral feeding ("drip feed") has many adverse effects on the liver and other organs and should never be used unless the GI system cannot be used to provide adequate nutrition. Sallenmd (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious

[edit]

The claim that in Egypt geese are force-fed is very likely untrue. The use of tubes to feed animals is unknown and expensive in Egypt. There is a very likely confusion between over-feeding and force-feeding. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 00:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking up تزغيت on google, it appears to indeed be force feeding, so I'm removing the dubious marker. Av = λv (talk) 03:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Force-feeding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Force-feeding" of babies

[edit]

I suggest that this section does not belong in this article. Gavage of infants who lack the suckle reflex is legitimate medical treatment and does not merit the opprobrium generally given to force-feeding. Kent G. Budge (talk) 22:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is euthanasia cross-linked?

[edit]

Self explanatory, why is this cross-linked with the article on “The Right To Die” 2601:249:380:69F0:D934:2220:BAED:C4FA (talk) 03:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Canada

[edit]

I have added an updated citation from the Government of Canada's Correctional Services website which contains the legal policy which clearly outlines how the Canadian government retains the right to intervene after a hunger striking inmate loses consciousness, which is generally inevitably what will medically take place. I also have removed the citation needed addition as it was illogical given that the Canadian government clearly supports the force-feeding of inmates as per the aforementioned document. Questioning their policy stand with regard to the Declaration of Tokyo would be like questioning Saddam Hussein's support of the Chemical Weapons Convention. Ridiculous. Given that the Canadian government clearly supports the force-feeding of inmates it logically follows that they reject the Declaration of Tokyo. Daystrom (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What you are referencing, as stated in the article, is the policy once a prisoner loses the ability to choose. Meaning that that they CAN force feed a prisoner once the prisoner's health has deteriorated to the loss of consciousness, psychological coherence, etc. This has been long-standing policy in Canadian prisons. I am a former prisoner, and it's something discussed with me by other prisoners.
I do know of a case, however, where a middle eastern cab driver, Dr. Ahmed El-Meadawy, (former owner of Luxury Cabs) in Lethbridge, Alberta, was incarcerated following an altercation in which he assaulted 4 people with a pocket knife. He claims in self-defence, although the courts disagreed. He recieved a 15 month sentence.
During that time, in protest regarding his innocence and jail conditions, he began a hunger strike which lasted over 34 days.
This is an incident I witnessed, partly first hand, as I was briefly in a cell next to his on the health unit at Lethbridge Correctional Center.
The jail did not attempt to force feed him at any time, and by his own written account he eventually ended his hunger strike of his own accord.
I would also like to note that Canadian Law EXPLICITLY prohibits the force feeding of inmates that are within their right mind.
[Corrections and Conditional Release Act (S.C. 1992, c. 20), paragraph 89]
"89 The Service shall not direct the force-feeding, by any method, of an inmate who has the capacity to understand the consequences of fasting at the time the inmate made the decision to fast."
Based upon all of this, I have edited this article regarding Canada, and removed the part about Canada not following the declaration of Tokyo, as we in fact clearly do.
Basically, the Canadian government will allow you to hunger strike until such a time as it creates a severe health risk, at which point they reserve the right to intervene..... understandably so, since you are in their care and they have a legal responsibility to ensure your health while in their custody. The Correction Service of Canada is in a sort of catch 22.... they have a legal responsibility to not force feed inmates as per Canadian law, however they have a legal responsibility to maintain the health of inmates ALSO as per Canadian Law. So when faced with two opposing legal mandates, the Correctional Service is choosing to err on the side that possibly saves a human life.
I'd also like to note that force feeding jail inmates is unheard of here. So far the Correction Service of Canada has been able to not be forced in between a rock and a hard place, as far as I can tell. I even used an AI search to search records all across Canada and could find very little except in regards to an anorexic patient in a hospital who's life was at risk. Her organs were literally shutting down.... and even then, the hospital requested permission from the courts first (and was granted it) before force feeding the patient both intravenously and with a gastronomic tube, in order to save her life 🤷‍♂️ Ballmatthew (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

China

[edit]

The claim that Uyghers are force-fed pork in China is not backed up by the provided source. The claim is not relevant to this page and I think the China section should be removed Isaacunderscore (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Force-feeding&oldid=1342808251"