Ever have a tube shoved up your nose and into your stomach?

[candycorn]

Just let them starve to death...problem solved.

Can't say I disagree. As I heard on here one time, play a stupid game, win a stupid prize. Or as I heard at a bar not long ago...

"When the gates are down and the signals are flashing; the whistle is screaming in vain....
And you stay on the tracks; ignoring the facts, you can't blame the wreck on the train."

 

[Harry Dresden]

40 of them have recently been proven totally innocent and soon to go home. Were 600 in 2009, now 166.

Pubs HAVE blocked bringing them to the US. Total mindless obstruction and then complain about it!! Bye in 2014...

You're a ******* mindless toady apologist for a failed President and his entire administration.

Frankie is someone who does not think the Democrats lie.......and at the same time does not even think he is just a tad brainwashed.......

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes.

So you don't have a problem that a guy that thinks we should apply high voltage electricity to their genitals loves the idea of force feeding them?

By they way, what do you think about the concept of consent? Do you think people should be able to refuse medical treatment, or do you think everyone should be forced to submit to your will because you are smarter than they are?

 

[Cowman]

I was in the bed next to someone who had a tube inserted voluntarily a few years ago. Frankly, waterboarding sounds a lot less painful to me.

The U.S. military has been force-feeding some of the detainees, a practice described as torture by some of those previously subject to it. Today, the UN’s commissioner for human rights weighed in, his spokesperson saying that “if it's perceived as torture or inhuman treatment -- and it's the case, it's painful -- then it is prohibited by international law.” The stance, he explained, is based on a 1991 declaration by the World Medical Association that forced feeding is “never ethically acceptable.”
Will the Nobel Peace Prize winning president who promised the U.S. wouldn’t torture stop torturing? Or will he use his own definition of torture, as his predecessor George W. Bush did? Or will he and his apologists just ignore it, like every other promise broken and right violated by this president?

President Obama Won?t Just Close Gitmo, But Will He Stop the Torturing? - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Tube through the nose is a common medical BENEFICIAL thing. It's done all the time across the country. IT IS NOT A TORTURE METHOD.

Shut up with your dumbass notion that waterboarding seems nicer. Waterboarding makes you feel like death is imminent from drowning. Tube through the nose does no such thing.

I don't have a problem with forcing adequate nutrition to a detainee through a tube in his nose if he won't eat any other way. Waterboarding is in a whole different league.


You know what I said today when I was doing some paperwork? "This is torture." But any idiot knows the difference. I guess you're just an extra special kind of idiot.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I was in the bed next to someone who had a tube inserted voluntarily a few years ago. Frankly, waterboarding sounds a lot less painful to me.

The U.S. military has been force-feeding some of the detainees, a practice described as torture by some of those previously subject to it. Today, the UN’s commissioner for human rights weighed in, his spokesperson saying that “if it's perceived as torture or inhuman treatment -- and it's the case, it's painful -- then it is prohibited by international law.” The stance, he explained, is based on a 1991 declaration by the World Medical Association that forced feeding is “never ethically acceptable.”
Will the Nobel Peace Prize winning president who promised the U.S. wouldn’t torture stop torturing? Or will he use his own definition of torture, as his predecessor George W. Bush did? Or will he and his apologists just ignore it, like every other promise broken and right violated by this president?

President Obama Won?t Just Close Gitmo, But Will He Stop the Torturing? - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Tube through the nose is a common medical BENEFICIAL thing. It's done all the time across the country. IT IS NOT A TORTURE METHOD.

Shut up with your dumbass notion that waterboarding seems nicer. Waterboarding makes you feel like death is imminent from drowning. Tube through the nose does no such thing.

I don't have a problem with forcing adequate nutrition to a detainee through a tube in his nose if he won't eat any other way. Waterboarding is in a whole different league.


You know what I said today when I was doing some paperwork? "This is torture." But any idiot knows the difference. I guess you're just an extra special kind of idiot.

It is a torture method when it is done to a competent person who does not consent, just like water boarding is not torture when it is done to a competent, consenting person.

 

[candycorn]

Yes.

So you don't have a problem that a guy that thinks we should apply high voltage electricity to their genitals loves the idea of force feeding them?

When did you get it under your dome that I said such a thing?

By they way, what do you think about the concept of consent? Do you think people should be able to refuse medical treatment, or do you think everyone should be forced to submit to your will because you are smarter than they are?

Sure people should be able to refuse medical care if they are of the sound mind and body to do so. Is someone presents comatose or if there is no living will; I'll play along with you and admit to "force feeding"--I guess that is the goal.

 

[candycorn]

I was in the bed next to someone who had a tube inserted voluntarily a few years ago. Frankly, waterboarding sounds a lot less painful to me.

The U.S. military has been force-feeding some of the detainees, a practice described as torture by some of those previously subject to it. Today, the UN’s commissioner for human rights weighed in, his spokesperson saying that “if it's perceived as torture or inhuman treatment -- and it's the case, it's painful -- then it is prohibited by international law.” The stance, he explained, is based on a 1991 declaration by the World Medical Association that forced feeding is “never ethically acceptable.”
Will the Nobel Peace Prize winning president who promised the U.S. wouldn’t torture stop torturing? Or will he use his own definition of torture, as his predecessor George W. Bush did? Or will he and his apologists just ignore it, like every other promise broken and right violated by this president?

President Obama Won?t Just Close Gitmo, But Will He Stop the Torturing? - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Tube through the nose is a common medical BENEFICIAL thing. It's done all the time across the country. IT IS NOT A TORTURE METHOD.

Shut up with your dumbass notion that waterboarding seems nicer. Waterboarding makes you feel like death is imminent from drowning. Tube through the nose does no such thing.

I don't have a problem with forcing adequate nutrition to a detainee through a tube in his nose if he won't eat any other way. Waterboarding is in a whole different league.


You know what I said today when I was doing some paperwork? "This is torture." But any idiot knows the difference. I guess you're just an extra special kind of idiot.

I guess he wants all nurses tried for war crimes.

Please give us an election so we can discuss actual politics instead of this garbage.

 

[FA_Q2]

We do it dozens of times a day in our hospitals; never a problem. OP has shit for brains.

You cannot find a single hospital in the US that force feeds anyone that is legally competent. It is a violation of ethical standards of the AMA, and actually is covered by WMA Declaration of Tokyo - Guidelines for Physicians Concerning Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in Relation to Detention and Imprisonment, which was issued in 1975.

WMA Declaration of Tokyo - Guidelines for Physicians Concerning Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in Relation to Detention and Imprisonment

Don't worry though, I am an idiot.

Of that I have no doubt.

By the way, I actually opposed water boarding on this board, and have flat out said I do not want the government to be able to use any form of torture, even if it will save lives. That means that I am being intellectually consistent.

What you're describing is an NG tube procedure by which liquid nutrition is introduced to the digestive track through a tube that goes through the nose (Naso) and into the stomach (Gastric). We do this for comatose, sedated, or patients who have acute injuries that prevent them from eating foods conventionaly.

As for the amount of pain involved, you are, in fact, ignorant. There is hardly any pain at all as I have had this done to me before. When I was in nursing school--we actually did it on each other in the class. In that environment, it hurt the administrator more than it hurt the "patient". BTW...I had my voice box photographed the other day...and I lived to tell about it.

You know, it may just be possible that Obama does some things that aren't blatantly evil.

Irrelevant. The pain is not the issue.

What you are all missing is the idea of this being a ‘torture’ method has nothing to do with pain. It has to do with the complete removal of free will. It is a pretty terrible thing when you lose even the ability to choose to feed yourself or not.

BTW, he provides you with a credible source declaring such a practice was unethical and amounted to ‘cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment” while you have provided nothing. You do realize that Bush used that same defense; he claimed that we did not commit torture because he decided that waterboarding did not fit the definition. You bought that, didn’t you?

Imagine the same procedure if you are tied to a bed, resisting the the attempt to hold your head steady, and refusing to swallow when the tube reaches your esophagus.

This is really irrelevant though. You can’t argue that this was cruel and unusual treatment. That is clearly not the case. If I gathered your point correctly, it is more a matter of forcing a medical treatment on one that does not want it. As I stated before, I have no problem withholding the treatment if they don’t want it and I have to agree that there is no reason or justification for us to do so.

All that really needs to be presented is the fact that they were on a hunger strike and then they were force fed food through a tube to circumvent it.

It is considered unethical and is often used as a form of torture. It may even violate international law, I am not sure about that one.

I did not refute that. I just stated that the whole line about painful or not swallowing is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with ethics or legality of the action. All that is in question is whether or not force feeding someone against their will fits that criteria.

Imagine the same procedure if you are tied to a bed, resisting the the attempt to hold your head steady, and refusing to swallow when the tube reaches your esophagus.

This is really irrelevant though. You can’t argue that this was cruel and unusual treatment. That is clearly not the case. If I gathered your point correctly, it is more a matter of forcing a medical treatment on one that does not want it. As I stated before, I have no problem withholding the treatment if they don’t want it and I have to agree that there is no reason or justification for us to do so.

All that really needs to be presented is the fact that they were on a hunger strike and then they were force fed food through a tube to circumvent it.

Enemy combatant | Define Enemy combatant at Dictionary.com

You catch em in he act you can damn sure kill em.

?
Why did you quote me with that statement? It has nothing to do with my statements and also has not been refuted at all in this thread.

 

[J.E.D]

Ever have a tube shoved up your nose and into your stomach?

We're not interested in your sex life. Thanks, though.

 

[Cowman]

I was in the bed next to someone who had a tube inserted voluntarily a few years ago. Frankly, waterboarding sounds a lot less painful to me.

President Obama Won?t Just Close Gitmo, But Will He Stop the Torturing? - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Tube through the nose is a common medical BENEFICIAL thing. It's done all the time across the country. IT IS NOT A TORTURE METHOD.

Shut up with your dumbass notion that waterboarding seems nicer. Waterboarding makes you feel like death is imminent from drowning. Tube through the nose does no such thing.

I don't have a problem with forcing adequate nutrition to a detainee through a tube in his nose if he won't eat any other way. Waterboarding is in a whole different league.


You know what I said today when I was doing some paperwork? "This is torture." But any idiot knows the difference. I guess you're just an extra special kind of idiot.

It is a torture method when it is done to a competent person who does not consent, just like water boarding is not torture when it is done to a competent, consenting person.

Waterboarding IS torture when done to a consenting person. Consent doesn't change how waterboarding works. Nearly all the people who have consented to have it done to them to see what it was like, have agreed that it is indeed torture. Even the people who have been harping previously that it was NOT torture.

This is just one of many of those blowhards. He drowned as a child, and had to be revived, and he says it was exactly like that.




branches of our military undergo waterboarding, with consent. Because it's understood to be torture, and they have to learn how to deal with it. Navy Seals or UDTs like Jesse Ventura who underwent it, say it is torture. Even consenting.

Would you like to undergo being drawn and quartered... consenting to it? I'm sure it wouldn't be torture for you, since you're consenting.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I did not refute that. I just stated that the whole line about painful or not swallowing is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with ethics or legality of the action. All that is in question is whether or not force feeding someone against their will fits that criteria.

My apologies, you are 100% correct, I misinterpreted your reply.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Tube through the nose is a common medical BENEFICIAL thing. It's done all the time across the country. IT IS NOT A TORTURE METHOD.

Shut up with your dumbass notion that waterboarding seems nicer. Waterboarding makes you feel like death is imminent from drowning. Tube through the nose does no such thing.

I don't have a problem with forcing adequate nutrition to a detainee through a tube in his nose if he won't eat any other way. Waterboarding is in a whole different league.


You know what I said today when I was doing some paperwork? "This is torture." But any idiot knows the difference. I guess you're just an extra special kind of idiot.

It is a torture method when it is done to a competent person who does not consent, just like water boarding is not torture when it is done to a competent, consenting person.

Waterboarding IS torture when done to a consenting person. Consent doesn't change how waterboarding works. Nearly all the people who have consented to have it done to them to see what it was like, have agreed that it is indeed torture. Even the people who have been harping previously that it was NOT torture.

This is just one of many of those blowhards. He drowned as a child, and had to be revived, and he says it was exactly like that.




branches of our military undergo waterboarding, with consent. Because it's understood to be torture, and they have to learn how to deal with it. Navy Seals or UDTs like Jesse Ventura who underwent it, say it is torture. Even consenting.

Would you like to undergo being drawn and quartered... consenting to it? I'm sure it wouldn't be torture for you, since you're consenting.

Consent does make a difference. It is perfectly legal to tie a person to the wall and use a whip on them, beat them unconscious, choke them, and even cut pieces of their skin off, all of which would be considered torture, as long as they consent to it in advance. There are people that actually enjoy it, and that would consider not having that happen to them on a regular basis torture.

 

[Jarlaxle]

It is perfectly legal to tie a person to the wall and use a whip on them, beat them unconscious, choke them, and even cut pieces of their skin off, all of which would be considered torture, as long as they consent to it in advance.

I think there are people who will PAY to have that done to them.

 

[Lakhota]

A "feeding chair" in the Guantanamo medical wing where hunger-striking detainees are
force fed. Sgt. Brian Godette, Army 138th Public Affairs Detachment

Military photographs show guards throwing away uneaten food and the "feeding chair" where detainees are force-fed.

For more than two weeks, 100 detainees at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba have been on hunger strike to protest conditions at the prison and their indefinite confinement. First denied and downplayed by the military, the strike has now become a full-blown emergency, as the Huffington Post's Ryan J. Reilly reports:

More: Photos: Stark Scenes From the Guantanamo Hunger Strike | Mother Jones

 

[buckeye45_73]

It is perfectly legal to tie a person to the wall and use a whip on them, beat them unconscious, choke them, and even cut pieces of their skin off, all of which would be considered torture, as long as they consent to it in advance.

I think there are people who will PAY to have that done to them.

very true.....some people get a kick out of champaign......

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A "feeding chair" in the Guantanamo medical wing where hunger-striking detainees are
force fed. Sgt. Brian Godette, Army 138th Public Affairs Detachment

Military photographs show guards throwing away uneaten food and the "feeding chair" where detainees are force-fed.

For more than two weeks, 100 detainees at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba have been on hunger strike to protest conditions at the prison and their indefinite confinement. First denied and downplayed by the military, the strike has now become a full-blown emergency, as the Huffington Post's Ryan J. Reilly reports:

More: Photos: Stark Scenes From the Guantanamo Hunger Strike | Mother Jones

Yet, for some reason, it isn't torture because Obama ordered it.

 

[Cowman]

I love how the conservatives are suddenly all siding with the United Nations.

They've become the individuals concerned with the welfare of the detainees, simply because they see political advantage, not because it remains consistent with their policies of the past.

As long as the tube feeding is not done to induce pain, agony, weight gain or adverse health effects, and is simply used to maintain nourishment... I'm fine with it.

Conservatives would rather these people starve themselves to death, than get a chance to go to trial and possibly be released because of invalid or non-existent charges.

"A starving Muslim is a good Muslim!"

 

[candycorn]

You cannot find a single hospital in the US that force feeds anyone that is legally competent. It is a violation of ethical standards of the AMA, and actually is covered by WMA Declaration of Tokyo - Guidelines for Physicians Concerning Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in Relation to Detention and Imprisonment, which was issued in 1975.

WMA Declaration of Tokyo - Guidelines for Physicians Concerning Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in Relation to Detention and Imprisonment

Don't worry though, I am an idiot.

Of that I have no doubt.

What you're describing is an NG tube procedure by which liquid nutrition is introduced to the digestive track through a tube that goes through the nose (Naso) and into the stomach (Gastric). We do this for comatose, sedated, or patients who have acute injuries that prevent them from eating foods conventionaly.

As for the amount of pain involved, you are, in fact, ignorant. There is hardly any pain at all as I have had this done to me before. When I was in nursing school--we actually did it on each other in the class. In that environment, it hurt the administrator more than it hurt the "patient". BTW...I had my voice box photographed the other day...and I lived to tell about it.

You know, it may just be possible that Obama does some things that aren't blatantly evil.

Irrelevant. The pain is not the issue.

What you are all missing is the idea of this being a ‘torture’ method has nothing to do with pain. It has to do with the complete removal of free will. It is a pretty terrible thing when you lose even the ability to choose to feed yourself or not.

By that definition, every prisoner in the country who is currently interred somewhere is being tortured if they want to leave and can't?

If they are not getting enough exercise, calories, social interaction, etc...

The right wing lunatics have gotten comical as of late.

BTW, he provides you with a credible source declaring such a practice was unethical and amounted to ‘cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment” while you have provided nothing. You do realize that Bush used that same defense; he claimed that we did not commit torture because he decided that waterboarding did not fit the definition. You bought that, didn’t you?

As soon as we start beneficially waterboarding patients in the hospital, I'll agree with you.

Your comparison is asinine. Someday when you're older and hopefully wiser, you'll understand that.

I did not refute that. I just stated that the whole line about painful or not swallowing is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with ethics or legality of the action. All that is in question is whether or not force feeding someone against their will fits that criteria.

Okay...so whatever your point is; what it comes down to is whether Obama should just let people die by starving themselves; right?

I am guessing you think he should just turn off the lights and let the guy die.

I disagree.

I think if you were a guard at one of these installations, you'd be all for force feeding; the sight of a person reverting to his or her birth weight in their 20's and 30's is not something you forget easily; if ever. I haven't.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I love how the conservatives are suddenly all siding with the United Nations.

They've become the individuals concerned with the welfare of the detainees, simply because they see political advantage, not because it remains consistent with their policies of the past.

As long as the tube feeding is not done to induce pain, agony, weight gain or adverse health effects, and is simply used to maintain nourishment... I'm fine with it.

Conservatives would rather these people starve themselves to death, than get a chance to go to trial and possibly be released because of invalid or non-existent charges.

"A starving Muslim is a good Muslim!"

I have always opposed government taking away people's rights. The fact that the feeding is done against the will of mentally competent people is what makes it wrong, period. The fact that you support it means you support waterboarding, as long as the purpose of said water boarding is not to induce pain and suffering.

These people will never go to trial, something they, and you, have been repeatedly told. They are on a hunger strike in order to end their confinement, and you are saying they should be forced to endure it simply because you don't want to criticize Obama.

 

[boedicca]

Here is CA, foie gras was made illegal because the nanny staters in CA decided force feeding was animal cruelty...and here the Feds are force feeding GITMO prisoners.

Apparently geese are more important than people.