Logo image
Legal and ethical implications of medically enforced treatment of detained asylum seekers on hunger strike
Journal article   Peer reviewed

Legal and ethical implications of medically enforced treatment of detained asylum seekers on hunger strike

M.A. Kenny, D.M. Silove and Z. Steel
Medical Journal of Australia, Vol.180(5), pp.237-240
2004
url
Link to Published Version *Subscription may be requiredView
url
Free to Read *No subscription requiredView

Abstract

- The current practice of non-consensual medical treatment of hunger-striking asylum seekers in detention needs closer inquiry. - An Australian Government regulation empowers the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA) to authorise non-consensual medical treatment for a person in immigration detention if they are at risk of physical harm, but there are doubts about whether the regulation would withstand legal challenge. - Authorisation by DIMIA does not compel medical practitioners to enforce treatment if such action is contrary to their “ethical, moral or religious convictions”. - The World Medical Association has established guidelines for doctors involved in managing people on hunger strikes. The Declaration of Tokyo (1975) and the Declaration of Malta (1991) both prohibit the use of non-consensual force-feeding of hunger strikers who are mentally competent. - If called upon to treat hunger strikers, medical practitioners should be aware of their ethical and legal responsibilities, and that they should act independently of government or institutional interests.

Details

Metrics

InCites Highlights

These are selected metrics from InCites Benchmarking & Analytics tool, related to this output

Collaboration types
Domestic collaboration
Citation topics
6 Social Sciences
6.24 Psychiatry & Psychology
6.24.2148 Medical Ethics
Web Of Science research areas
Medicine, General & Internal
ESI research areas
Clinical Medicine
Logo image