Skip to content

ACN - 101321555 | ABN - 39101321555

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

AHRECS icon
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Menu
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Exclude terms...
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
AHRECS
Analysis
Animal ethics
Animal Ethics Committee
Animal handling
Animal housing
Animal Research Ethics
Animal Welfare
ANZCCART
Artificial Intelligence
Arts
Australia
Authorship
Belief
Beneficence
Big data
Big data
Biobank
Bioethics
Biomedical
Biospecimens
Breaches
Cartoon/Funny
Case studies
Clinical trial
Collaborative research
Conflicts of interest
Consent
Controversy/Scandal
Controversy/Scandal
Creative
Culture
Data management
Database
Dual-use
Essential Reading
Ethical review
Ethnography
Euthanasia
Evaluative practice/quality assurance
Even though i
First People
Fraud
Gender
Genetics
Get off Gary Play man of the dog
Good practice
Guidance
Honesty
HREC
Human research ethics
Humanities
Institutional responsibilities
International
Journal
Justice
Links
Media
Medical research
Merit and integrity
Methodology
Monitoring
New Zealand
News
Online research
Peer review
Performance
Primary materials
Principles
Privacy
Protection for participants
Psychology
Publication ethics
Questionable Publishers
Research ethics committees
Research integrity
Research Misconduct
Research results
Researcher responsibilities
Resources
Respect for persons
Sample paperwork
sd
se
Serious Adverse Event
Social Science
SoTL
Standards
Supervision
Training
Vulnerability
What was that say
x
Young people
Exclude news

Sort by

Animal Ethics Biosafety Human Research Ethics Research Integrity

(US) The Minnesota Starvation Experiment and Force Feeding of Prisoners—Relying on Unethical Research to Justify the Unjustifiable (Papers: Zohar Lederman & Teck Chuan Voo | May 2021)

Posted by Dr Gary Allen in Human Research Ethics on June 1, 2021
Keywords: Bioethics, Biomedical, Consent, Human research ethics, Research results, Researcher responsibilities, Respect for persons

The Linked Original Item was Posted On May, 3 2021 20:56:05

Prison transport

There is much to find deeply troubling in this paper, research and conduct, which make a mockery of any respect for agency.

Abstract
This article poses a response to one argument supporting the force feeding of political prisoners. This argument assumes that prisoners have moral autonomy and thus cannot be force fed in the early stages of their hunger strike. However, as their fasting progresses, their cognitive competence declines, and they are no longer autonomous. Since they are no longer autonomous, force feeding becomes justified. This article questions the recurrent citation of a paper in empirical support of the claim that hunger strike causes mental disorders or cognitive impairments. The paper, written by Daniel Fessler, partially relies on the Minnesota Starvation Experiment conducted in 1944 to 1945 for scientific support. Using widely accepted criteria for assessing the ethical acceptability of clinical research, we argue that the Minnesota Starvation Experiment had significant scientific shortcomings and is a case of unethical research. From this, we question the appropriateness of citing the Minnesota Starvation Experiment and consequently Fessler’s paper. If Citing Fessler’s paper becomes problematic, this particular argument for the force feeding of prisoners loses much of its strength.

Keywords
Minnesota starvation experiment, Hunger strike, Research ethics, Competence, Force feeding

Lederman, Z., Voo, T.C. (2021) The Minnesota Starvation Experiment and Force Feeding of Prisoners—Relying on Unethical Research to Justify the Unjustifiable. Bioethical Inquiry. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-021-10109-z
Publisher: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11673-021-10109-z

The Minnesota Starvation Experiment and Force Feeding of Prisoners—Relying on Unethical Research to Justify the Unjustifiable
This article poses a response to one argument supporting the force feeding of political prisoners. This argument assumes that prisoners have moral autonomy and thus cannot be force fed in the early stages of their hunger strike. However, as their fasting progresses, their cognitive competence declin…

Related Reading

Ethical or exploitative—should prisoners participate in COVID-19 vaccine trials? – Science (Eli Cahan | September 2020)

(China, Australia) Journals have retracted or flagged more than 40 papers from China that appear to have used organ transplants from executed prisoners – Retraction Watch (Ivan Oransky | April 2020)

(US) This Researcher Exploited Prisoners, Children, and the Elderly. Why Does Penn Honor Him? – The Chronicle of Higher Education (Alexander Kafka, | November 2019)

Disgraced tracheal transplant surgeon is handed 16 month prison sentence in Italy (Papers: Michael Day | November 2019)

Former GP Spurs 20+ Retractions Over Forced Transplants From Chinese Prisoners – Medspace (Diana Swift | October 2019)

Journal Publishes Concern About Study Using Forced Organ Donation – Medscape (Diana Swift | June 2019)

Tell the World – Exposing how China is creating the world’s largest prison – ABC Four Corners (July 2019)

Remains of dissected Nazi prisoners to be laid to rest in Berlin – The Guardian (Philip Oltermann | May 2019)

Organ transplants from executed Chinese prisoners and research ethics – Radio National ABC (Norman Swan | February 2019)

Time to Dismiss the Stanford Prison Experiment? – Inside Higher Ed (Greg Toppo | June 2018)

The Doctors Trial: The Medical Case of the Subsequent Nuremberg Proceedings – USHMM

History, Ethics and the Presidential Commission on Research in Guatemala (Papers: Barry Lyons 2014)

Strictly Confidential?: Integrity and the Disclosure of Criminological and Socio-Legal Research (Papers: Mark Israel 2004)

Creator Of The Stanford Prison Experiment Looks Back On Its Disturbing Outcome 44 Years Later – Huffpost Live (Ryan Buxton 2015)

What can Milgram and Zimbardo teach ethics committees and qualitative researchers about minimizing harm? (Martin Tolich 2014)

Related Links

  • About the contributors
  • About the keywords
  • Suggest a resource
  • Report problem/broken link
  • Request a Take Down

Compiled here are links, downloads and other resources relating to research integrity and human research ethics. more…

Resources Menu

Four hands solving a jigsaw against the sun blazing out of a cloudy sky

Research Integrity

  • Codes, guidelines, policies and standards
  • Guidance and resource material
  • Papers
  • Books
  • Animal Ethics

Human Research Ethics

  • Codes, guidelines, policies and standards
  • Guidance and resource material
  • Papers
  • Books

Research Ethics Monthly Receive copies of the Research Ethics Monthly directly
by email. We will never spam you.

  • Enter the answer as a word
  • Hidden
    This field is hidden and only used for import to Mailchimp
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map
  • Site Map

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in