Force-feeding?

Superskeptik said:So what are they, if they aren't people? 😕

This kind of logic is exactly where so much trouble starts—it gives parents total control over their children, simply because adults have "human rights" while kids don't...

Haha, you really should have been skeptical about whether I actually meant what I wrote.

I was just messing around. It reminded me of a scene from One Hundred Years of Solitude—if I recall correctly, Holden Caulfield makes a similar claim about children not being human.

Still, it’s an interesting topic to explore. From my perspective, it seems like kids' rights are often diminished, and honestly, they probably shouldn't be so limited.

Of course it's acceptable.

The general principle here is pretty straightforward: medicine exists to improve quality of life and restore health—period. It isn't meant to serve as a platform for expressing one's own personal moral stances.

Case 1:
A free citizen decides they want to go on a hunger strike—for whatever reason, really—and they face forced hospitalization because their drive toward death has overridden their instinct for survival, which is essentially a psychological condition. That’s a psychiatric matter, naturally.

Case 2:
An individual in custody attempts a hunger strike within a correctional facility: in this instance, forced feeding becomes necessary, primarily because the person is in a state resulting from a violation of established rights—or at least the suspicion of one. In these specific circumstances, the state has already codified its right to limit an individual's liberty, and that right simply needs to be exercised. This is especially true since the state holds responsibility for that person while they are in such an institution, which brings us back to the fundamental duty of medicine. I’ll say it again: medicine isn't a moral playground; it is a very concrete field with clearly defined goals and tasks. This is particularly pronounced within closed institutions.

The government has both the right and the obligation—by its very definition—to act for the well-being of all its citizens. If a citizen is unable to properly assess or pursue their own well-being, the state is obligated to revoke certain rights (much like how we might restrict a driver's license for someone who is blind, or firearm permits for those with mental health issues) and, in turn, take on the responsibility of protecting that person's welfare.