You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Author meets critics: responses
Guantanamo and Other Cases of Enforced Medical Treatment-A Biopolitical Analysis
  1. Mirko D Garasic
  1. Correspondence to Dr Mirko Daniel Garasic Edmond J Safra Center for Ethics, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel; mdgarasic{at}fulbrightmail.org

https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2016-103484

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    As suggested by the book's title, and the series in which it was published, Guantanamo and Other Cases of Enforced Medical Treatment—A Biopolitical Analysis1 is a collection of self-standing chapters that focus on a number of controversial cases in which the notions of competence and autonomy have been used to justify enforced medical treatment (or its absence) of individuals in relatively similar circumstances in the US, the UK and Italy. Some of the content of the book was previously published as individual articles,2 ,3 but juxtaposing the cases in the structure of the book affords the possibility of understanding the similarities and the differences between those cases through common biopolitical lenses and why that is so.

    In the first chapter, I take into account standard versions of the notion of autonomy, stressing their interconnection with other relevant notions such as competence and biopolitics. After a brief historical analysis of autonomy within the Western tradition, I present a number of cases pertaining to the field of biomedicine that are charged with political issues. By stressing on the inconsistency in the application of the notion of autonomy to cases of enforced (or refused) medical treatment depending on …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Funding This work was supported, in part, by the Edmond J Safra Center for Ethics, Tel Aviv University, the Golda Meir Fellowship, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Fulbright Program.

    • Disclaimer The views expressed are the author's own. They do not represent the position or policy of any of the funders.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    Linked Articles

    Other content recommended for you