■ 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 o 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 dose 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 im 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 strikes who are mentally competent. ■ If called upon to treat hunger strikes, medical practitioners should be aware of their ethical and legal responsibilities, and that they should act independently of government or institutional interests.

[No Keywords available]

depression Fasting morality nasogastric tube Australia human Enteral Nutrition Refugees immigration risk assessment medical society Internationality medical ethics Prisoners Ethics, Medical diet restriction Coercion religion human rights Humans male Japan case report Article prison adult legal aspect government Malta fluid therapy antidepressant agent practice guideline health practitioner law enforcement