Research Paper on the Bio-Ethics of Force Feeding in Guantamo Bay This is a legal paper about force feeding at Guantanamo Bay. As such, there needs to be plenty of legal talk. There are many cases out there directly on point. The paper needs a big historic piece. Do people have the right to starve under prisoner rights? Are they technically patients? What are the patients rights? Start broad. Person’s right to not be force fed. Then narrow it down. This is an American Law paper but also look at British/international law too. What does the UN think/say? The Vatican doesn’t think that nutrition and hydration count as treatment (which is a big deal because the law is careful with the distinction of nutrition/hydration vs. treatment – they are not interchangeable). What do the court cases regarding force feeding at Guantanamo say? Food + water or do they say treatment? The Catholic Church’s pronouncement on force-feeding? When can you refuse treatment? Apply that to the law to force feeding. The law is pretty consistent that you can refuse nutrition at the end of life. If you can reject treatment, why does it not translate to force feeding? (See also maybe rules on prisoners per Geneva Convention) Definitely use the Bouvia Case (Bouvia v. Superior Court 179 Ca. App. 3rd 1127). Autonomy vs. Beneficence, aka Individual Decision Making vs. Treatment/Best Interest Test. Bouvia case is different. Prison is punishment. In Guantanamo Bay there are healthy people going on hunger strikes. Bouvia physically can’t eat vs. someone who would rather die than be in prison. Bouvia has control over one thing, the ability to exist and nothing else. FOUR state interests: (1) Preserving life (2) Preventing suicide (3) Protecting innocent Third Parties and (4) Maintaining the ethical standards of the medical profession. Why the fourth one? Consent of patient should evolve that fourth rule. Accepting death as consequence of refusing treatment, for painful, religious, or any other purpose, is different from one who is actively seeking death. Professor of my course believes that prison is a punishment you must face. You can’t execute an incompetent person. Can you execute a criminal person who is not competent (mentally ill), who’s rejected drugs that would’ve made him competent? Can you forcibly give him/her the drugs, to get the competent, so that you can legally kill him/her? This is a very big issue right now and my professor strongly believes against capital punishment. You don’t have to necessarily agree with my professor but its something to keep in mind. The basic idea is (1) What’s going on now, (2) what’s happened in the past, and (3) my ideas. Have a summary at the end of each section and there needs to be a sense of flow. The assignment is 25-30 pages. Needs footnotes (not endnotes). Of course you’ll need to talk on the law for a bit, but the core of this paper is the analytical section, i.e., my input on the topic. We want to educate the reader so that the reader can understand the analysis and personal ideas. Can you have an outline (1-2 pages) ready for me soon? If you have any questions please don’t hesitate to contact me. Thank you so very much.