Article Text

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
Force-feeding, hunger strikes, Guantanamo and autonomy: replies to George Annas, Charles Foster and Michael Gross
  1. Mirko D Garasic
  1. Correspondence to Dr Mirko D Garasic, Tel Aviv University, Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel; mdgarasic{at}

Statistics from

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.

First of all, I want to thank each of the commentators for having constructively engaged with my work. Having referred directly to their respective works in the book, this opportunity to ‘meet my critics’ is particularly welcomed. In line with the mission of this section of the journal, the commentaries of George Annas, Charles Foster and Michael Gross are all well received for their contribution in making the discussion on my book alive and evolving.1–3 After all, one of the advantages of this format is precisely to spark further debate and favour a potentially constructive dialogue between the parts. I am thus pleased to have received different critiques—and possible extensions—to the nature and scope of my project, and I will try to address here some of the main points I find in need of an immediate reply.

To begin with, I have the impression that Annas was somehow disappointed by the unfortunate (in his eyes at least) choice of words for the title of the book to begin with, as daring to compare Guantanamo to ‘other cases’ not as powerful in their (negative) impact on humanity. Being one of the most prominent scholar and activist engaged against Guantanamo, that is understandable. Yet, I want to stress again two important aspects explained in the book: first, Guantanamo has a particular role within the cases considered because it is the most known—and thus useful to the cause of sensitising uninitiated readers on the topic. Second, the fact that Guantanamo is considered ‘only’ at the end of the book reflects my intention to gradually expand on the dynamics that have paved the way for Guantanamo to take place. Even if just through a ‘glimpse’, if the book contributes to enlarging the discussion on enforced medical treatment and pay attention to cases like …

View Full Text


  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles

  • The concise argument
    Dominic Wilkinson

Other content recommended for you