Ever have a tube shoved up your nose and into your stomach?

[Quantum Windbag]

I have not personally but my son has and I can tell you that the process was uncomfortable but not painful in any way. He required the tube inserted because he was unable to eat for a month. Other than getting angry because he did not want the tube (so this was involuntary as well I guess) and a sore throat for a few days there were no other side effects. The tube itself is easy to put in and remove and causes no discomfort other than having an annoying tube sticking out of your nose. It is a standard medical procedure requiring no pain meds or even a doctor. His was placed and removed by a nurse though I can tell you I almost removed the damn thing myself. I can imagine that they are rather angry at the fact because it is involuntary though.

I question the point here? If they go on a hunger strike until they die, who gives a shit? I sure do not. I do not want the government torturing people or detaining people they should not but these are actions of government that need to be overseen and controlled. Some need to be detained. Going on a hunger strike is there choice and I see no reason to try and limit it. If they want to kill themselves, oh well. At least they are not doing so with a bomb strapped to their chest around others that are innocent. We can only give them accommodations that are adequate for a POW, going further just seems silly to me.

He was cooperating, and swallowing, wasn't he? Imagine the same thing if he was incapable of swallowing, actively resisting, and did not want one.

I think the last part is why it is considered unethical. I guess Obama found some doctors that don't have ethical qualms, the same way Bush did.

Have you had this procedure done?
No? Then STFU you dont know what your talking about.

I have never had my hand chopped off while I was awake either, that does not make me any less qualified to say I don't want to have it done.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Try them for the acts of terrorism or war that they're being held for. Half the guys they have in Gitmo were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. We need to figure out who truly are the bad guys, separate and sentence them and move on. This hellish decade long purgatory we've sentenced these muslim men to is disgusting and unAmerican. This was one of the main things Obama ran on and it's dickless that he hasn't seen it through.

He never intended to "see it through". It is called "campaigning" - you know, what he mainly still does today.The problem with Gitmo is there is no real answer as to what to do. In previous wars enemy combatants were held until the war was over and released. Sometimes before.
The problem with today - the war on terror is not over, and who is to say when it would be.
One thing is almost 100% certain - return these people, and we will meet many of them again.

I don’t know about that. I think he was actually sincere in trying to shut down Gitmo. The problem is that many of the people there could quite possibly be innocent. We know this but there is simply nothing we can do about it. Others are guilty but lacking evidence as collection for trial is not exactly a strong skill in the military. Expecting military to have gathered and kept that kind of evidence is star eyed insanity. No country is willing to take them, they can’t come here so what do you do? Nothing. They can’t be tried as then there are going to end up in this country and when you don’t have the evidence to convict but you don’t actually know whether or not they are really guilty, you cant give them full access to Americans.

Really, if this were a normal war, we could simply wait till the conflict was over and give them back to the host nation. This is what happens though when you get in a war that has no end. You end up with people that may or may not be guilty but that have absolutely nowhere on earth that is willing to take them in as citizens.

Oh I think he fully intended to - but saying you are going to do something popular to your supporters without having any idea if you really can or not - is the essence of campaigning. That is what I meant.
And unfortunately the sheep on both sides need little convincing to follow the leader.

 

[FA_Q2]

He never intended to "see it through". It is called "campaigning" - you know, what he mainly still does today.The problem with Gitmo is there is no real answer as to what to do. In previous wars enemy combatants were held until the war was over and released. Sometimes before.
The problem with today - the war on terror is not over, and who is to say when it would be.
One thing is almost 100% certain - return these people, and we will meet many of them again.

I don’t know about that. I think he was actually sincere in trying to shut down Gitmo. The problem is that many of the people there could quite possibly be innocent. We know this but there is simply nothing we can do about it. Others are guilty but lacking evidence as collection for trial is not exactly a strong skill in the military. Expecting military to have gathered and kept that kind of evidence is star eyed insanity. No country is willing to take them, they can’t come here so what do you do? Nothing. They can’t be tried as then there are going to end up in this country and when you don’t have the evidence to convict but you don’t actually know whether or not they are really guilty, you cant give them full access to Americans.

Really, if this were a normal war, we could simply wait till the conflict was over and give them back to the host nation. This is what happens though when you get in a war that has no end. You end up with people that may or may not be guilty but that have absolutely nowhere on earth that is willing to take them in as citizens.

Oh I think he fully intended to - but saying you are going to do something popular to your supporters without having any idea if you really can or not - is the essence of campaigning. That is what I meant.
And unfortunately the sheep on both sides need little convincing to follow the leader.

I’ll give you that. He had no concept of what he was getting into when he boasted of closing GITMO.

 

[FA_Q2]

Try them for the acts of terrorism or war that they're being held for. Half the guys they have in Gitmo were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. We need to figure out who truly are the bad guys, separate and sentence them and move on. This hellish decade long purgatory we've sentenced these muslim men to is disgusting and unAmerican. This was one of the main things Obama ran on and it's dickless that he hasn't seen it through.

War is not a crime unless you are a citizen and engage in armed rebellion, stop pretending it is. Obama does not want to try them because he understands this, he also does not want to let them go. He just wants to tuck everyone away someplace where he can pretend we did the right thing. I prefer them out in the open so we know exactly what we are doing.

The type of war they waged is illegal. The Geneva convention doesnt cover terrorist and none uniformed troops. We could put them against the wall and shoot em and be well within our rights.
What the hell does this mean?
" I prefer them out in the open so we know exactly what we are doing."

That’s not actually correct. The conventions apply to all nations that agreed to it and it controls their actions. It does not matter if your enemy violates them; you are still required to abide by the rules. Technically speaking of course.

QW has a point though – why are we forcing them through a medical procedure. The food has been offered and we have done our due diligence. If they want to starve to death – let them.

 

[FA_Q2]

Simple question, was it done with, or without, your consent?

Thats not a simple question....it's a stupid one.

Imagine the same procedure if you are tied to a bed, resisting the the attempt to hold your head steady, and refusing to swallow when the tube reaches your esophagus.

This is really irrelevant though. You can’t argue that this was cruel and unusual treatment. That is clearly not the case. If I gathered your point correctly, it is more a matter of forcing a medical treatment on one that does not want it. As I stated before, I have no problem withholding the treatment if they don’t want it and I have to agree that there is no reason or justification for us to do so.

All that really needs to be presented is the fact that they were on a hunger strike and then they were force fed food through a tube to circumvent it.

 

[Agit8r]

"Ever have a tube shoved up your nose and into your stomach?"

Of course. All the cool kids are doing it...

Mother: What the HELL is that THING in your nose!?!

Daughter: It's a tube that goes down my throat. It's what we're doing to be socially conscious.

Mother: Is that a drug thing?

Daughter: Ohm'god, mom it's to show solidarity with the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay! *throws up arms and walks out of room*

Mother: God, I wish it was a drug thing...

 

[candycorn]

We do it dozens of times a day in our hospitals; never a problem. OP has shit for brains.

You cannot find a single hospital in the US that force feeds anyone that is legally competent. It is a violation of ethical standards of the AMA, and actually is covered by WMA Declaration of Tokyo - Guidelines for Physicians Concerning Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in Relation to Detention and Imprisonment, which was issued in 1975.

Where a prisoner refuses nourishment and is considered by the physician as capable of forming an unimpaired and rational judgment concerning the consequences of such a voluntary refusal of nourishment, he or she shall not be fed artificially. The decision as to the capacity of the prisoner to form such a judgment should be confirmed by at least one other independent physician. The consequences of the refusal of nourishment shall be explained by the physician to the prisoner.

WMA Declaration of Tokyo - Guidelines for Physicians Concerning Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in Relation to Detention and Imprisonment

Don't worry though, I am an idiot.

Of that I have no doubt.

By the way, I actually opposed water boarding on this board, and have flat out said I do not want the government to be able to use any form of torture, even if it will save lives. That means that I am being intellectually consistent.

What you're describing is an NG tube procedure by which liquid nutrition is introduced to the digestive track through a tube that goes through the nose (Naso) and into the stomach (Gastric). We do this for comatose, sedated, or patients who have acute injuries that prevent them from eating foods conventionaly.

As for the amount of pain involved, you are, in fact, ignorant. There is hardly any pain at all as I have had this done to me before. When I was in nursing school--we actually did it on each other in the class. In that environment, it hurt the administrator more than it hurt the "patient". BTW...I had my voice box photographed the other day...and I lived to tell about it.

You know, it may just be possible that Obama does some things that aren't blatantly evil.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Thats not a simple question....it's a stupid one.

Imagine the same procedure if you are tied to a bed, resisting the the attempt to hold your head steady, and refusing to swallow when the tube reaches your esophagus.

This is really irrelevant though. You can’t argue that this was cruel and unusual treatment. That is clearly not the case. If I gathered your point correctly, it is more a matter of forcing a medical treatment on one that does not want it. As I stated before, I have no problem withholding the treatment if they don’t want it and I have to agree that there is no reason or justification for us to do so.

All that really needs to be presented is the fact that they were on a hunger strike and then they were force fed food through a tube to circumvent it.

It is considered unethical and is often used as a form of torture. It may even violate international law, I am not sure about that one.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We do it dozens of times a day in our hospitals; never a problem. OP has shit for brains.

You cannot find a single hospital in the US that force feeds anyone that is legally competent. It is a violation of ethical standards of the AMA, and actually is covered by WMA Declaration of Tokyo - Guidelines for Physicians Concerning Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in Relation to Detention and Imprisonment, which was issued in 1975.

WMA Declaration of Tokyo - Guidelines for Physicians Concerning Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in Relation to Detention and Imprisonment

Don't worry though, I am an idiot.

Of that I have no doubt.

By the way, I actually opposed water boarding on this board, and have flat out said I do not want the government to be able to use any form of torture, even if it will save lives. That means that I am being intellectually consistent.

What you're describing is an NG tube procedure by which liquid nutrition is introduced to the digestive track through a tube that goes through the nose (Naso) and into the stomach (Gastric). We do this for comatose, sedated, or patients who have acute injuries that prevent them from eating foods conventionaly.

As for the amount of pain involved, you are, in fact, ignorant. There is hardly any pain at all as I have had this done to me before. When I was in nursing school--we actually did it on each other in the class. In that environment, it hurt the administrator more than it hurt the "patient". BTW...I had my voice box photographed the other day...and I lived to tell about it.

You know, it may just be possible that Obama does some things that aren't blatantly evil.

Funny, I never said Obama is evil, what I say is that he is using a technique that is considered torture under international law, and is considered unethical by both the AMA and the UMA, yet you are defending him because you have used it yourself on people who are either incompetent, unconscious, or actually consent to the procedure. The latter is the same argument people used by people who defended water boarding. After all, if people trained in escape and evasion techniques do it to each other, it must not be torture.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Simple question, was it done with, or without, your consent?

Thats not a simple question....it's a stupid one.

Imagine the same procedure if you are tied to a bed, resisting the the attempt to hold your head steady, and refusing to swallow when the tube reaches your esophagus.

It wouldnt matter. You would swallow whether you wanted to or not.
I'm of the opinion that they should let em starve to death.
Only because I wouldnt want to force feed them....that would be unethical you know.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

We do it dozens of times a day in our hospitals; never a problem. OP has shit for brains.

You cannot find a single hospital in the US that force feeds anyone that is legally competent. It is a violation of ethical standards of the AMA, and actually is covered by WMA Declaration of Tokyo - Guidelines for Physicians Concerning Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in Relation to Detention and Imprisonment, which was issued in 1975.

Where a prisoner refuses nourishment and is considered by the physician as capable of forming an unimpaired and rational judgment concerning the consequences of such a voluntary refusal of nourishment, he or she shall not be fed artificially. The decision as to the capacity of the prisoner to form such a judgment should be confirmed by at least one other independent physician. The consequences of the refusal of nourishment shall be explained by the physician to the prisoner.

WMA Declaration of Tokyo - Guidelines for Physicians Concerning Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in Relation to Detention and Imprisonment

Don't worry though, I am an idiot.

By the way, I actually opposed water boarding on this board, and have flat out said I do not want the government to be able to use any form of torture, even if it will save lives. That means that I am being intellectually consistent.

Nah....it just means you're a moron. And as far as I'm concerned they can attach electrodes to their nuts and give em the juice. Just for fun.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

He was cooperating, and swallowing, wasn't he? Imagine the same thing if he was incapable of swallowing, actively resisting, and did not want one.

I think the last part is why it is considered unethical. I guess Obama found some doctors that don't have ethical qualms, the same way Bush did.

Have you had this procedure done?
No? Then STFU you dont know what your talking about.

I have never had my hand chopped off while I was awake either, that does not make me any less qualified to say I don't want to have it done.

So you're going to equate having your hand chopped off to having a tube put down your throat? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! Yep you're a moron.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Thats not a simple question....it's a stupid one.

Imagine the same procedure if you are tied to a bed, resisting the the attempt to hold your head steady, and refusing to swallow when the tube reaches your esophagus.

This is really irrelevant though. You can’t argue that this was cruel and unusual treatment. That is clearly not the case. If I gathered your point correctly, it is more a matter of forcing a medical treatment on one that does not want it. As I stated before, I have no problem withholding the treatment if they don’t want it and I have to agree that there is no reason or justification for us to do so.

All that really needs to be presented is the fact that they were on a hunger strike and then they were force fed food through a tube to circumvent it.

Enemy combatant | Define Enemy combatant at Dictionary.com

You catch em in he act you can damn sure kill em.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Imagine the same procedure if you are tied to a bed, resisting the the attempt to hold your head steady, and refusing to swallow when the tube reaches your esophagus.

This is really irrelevant though. You can’t argue that this was cruel and unusual treatment. That is clearly not the case. If I gathered your point correctly, it is more a matter of forcing a medical treatment on one that does not want it. As I stated before, I have no problem withholding the treatment if they don’t want it and I have to agree that there is no reason or justification for us to do so.

All that really needs to be presented is the fact that they were on a hunger strike and then they were force fed food through a tube to circumvent it.

It is considered unethical and is often used as a form of torture. It may even violate international law, I am not sure about that one.

Used as a form of torture? Really? Cool,you can have the electrodes to the nuts.
I'll go with the tube thanks. BECAUSE IT DOESNT HURT!!!
Somewhat unpleasant yes,painful no.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Thats not a simple question....it's a stupid one.

Imagine the same procedure if you are tied to a bed, resisting the the attempt to hold your head steady, and refusing to swallow when the tube reaches your esophagus.

It wouldnt matter. You would swallow whether you wanted to or not.
I'm of the opinion that they should let em starve to death.
Only because I wouldnt want to force feed them....that would be unethical you know.

Which brings us back to my point, Obama is no better than Bush in the way he treats prisoners at Gitmo.

 

[candycorn]

You cannot find a single hospital in the US that force feeds anyone that is legally competent. It is a violation of ethical standards of the AMA, and actually is covered by WMA Declaration of Tokyo - Guidelines for Physicians Concerning Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in Relation to Detention and Imprisonment, which was issued in 1975.

WMA Declaration of Tokyo - Guidelines for Physicians Concerning Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in Relation to Detention and Imprisonment

Don't worry though, I am an idiot.

Of that I have no doubt.

By the way, I actually opposed water boarding on this board, and have flat out said I do not want the government to be able to use any form of torture, even if it will save lives. That means that I am being intellectually consistent.

What you're describing is an NG tube procedure by which liquid nutrition is introduced to the digestive track through a tube that goes through the nose (Naso) and into the stomach (Gastric). We do this for comatose, sedated, or patients who have acute injuries that prevent them from eating foods conventionaly.

As for the amount of pain involved, you are, in fact, ignorant. There is hardly any pain at all as I have had this done to me before. When I was in nursing school--we actually did it on each other in the class. In that environment, it hurt the administrator more than it hurt the "patient". BTW...I had my voice box photographed the other day...and I lived to tell about it.

You know, it may just be possible that Obama does some things that aren't blatantly evil.

Funny, I never said Obama is evil, what I say is that he is using a technique that is considered torture under international law, and is considered unethical by both the AMA and the UMA, yet you are defending him because you have used it yourself on people who are either incompetent, unconscious, or actually consent to the procedure. The latter is the same argument people used by people who defended water boarding. After all, if people trained in escape and evasion techniques do it to each other, it must not be torture.

The NG tube is a time honored way of delivering nutrition to people. I guess in the same way a tourniquet in the wrong hands could be used to strangle or maim someone, you and other right wing lunatics are proposing Obama is using this as some means of torture--feeding people.

Just so you can see what is involved and perhaps, for the first time ever, learn something (I know, I'm a wide-eyed optimist) here is a You Tube video:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=en5ctZInOyA]Nasogastric tube insertion - YouTube[/ame]

I can't wait for the next election even though the GOP is primed to gain seats big time. This lack of topical references has unleashed a political silly season to where you guys don't know what to do with yourself so you brnig up mindless, moronic, juvenile topics like this.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Of that I have no doubt.



What you're describing is an NG tube procedure by which liquid nutrition is introduced to the digestive track through a tube that goes through the nose (Naso) and into the stomach (Gastric). We do this for comatose, sedated, or patients who have acute injuries that prevent them from eating foods conventionaly.

As for the amount of pain involved, you are, in fact, ignorant. There is hardly any pain at all as I have had this done to me before. When I was in nursing school--we actually did it on each other in the class. In that environment, it hurt the administrator more than it hurt the "patient". BTW...I had my voice box photographed the other day...and I lived to tell about it.

You know, it may just be possible that Obama does some things that aren't blatantly evil.

Funny, I never said Obama is evil, what I say is that he is using a technique that is considered torture under international law, and is considered unethical by both the AMA and the UMA, yet you are defending him because you have used it yourself on people who are either incompetent, unconscious, or actually consent to the procedure. The latter is the same argument people used by people who defended water boarding. After all, if people trained in escape and evasion techniques do it to each other, it must not be torture.

The NG tube is a time honored way of delivering nutrition to people. I guess in the same way a tourniquet in the wrong hands could be used to strangle or maim someone, you and other right wing lunatics are proposing Obama is using this as some means of torture--feeding people.

Just so you can see what is involved and perhaps, for the first time ever, learn something (I know, I'm a wide-eyed optimist) here is a You Tube video:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=en5ctZInOyA"]Nasogastric tube insertion - YouTube[/ame]

I can't wait for the next election even though the GOP is primed to gain seats big time. This lack of topical references has unleashed a political silly season to where you guys don't know what to do with yourself so you brnig up mindless, moronic, juvenile topics like this.

Have you seen the people in this thread that agree with you?

 

[candycorn]

Funny, I never said Obama is evil, what I say is that he is using a technique that is considered torture under international law, and is considered unethical by both the AMA and the UMA, yet you are defending him because you have used it yourself on people who are either incompetent, unconscious, or actually consent to the procedure. The latter is the same argument people used by people who defended water boarding. After all, if people trained in escape and evasion techniques do it to each other, it must not be torture.

The NG tube is a time honored way of delivering nutrition to people. I guess in the same way a tourniquet in the wrong hands could be used to strangle or maim someone, you and other right wing lunatics are proposing Obama is using this as some means of torture--feeding people.

Just so you can see what is involved and perhaps, for the first time ever, learn something (I know, I'm a wide-eyed optimist) here is a You Tube video:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=en5ctZInOyA"]Nasogastric tube insertion - YouTube[/ame]

I can't wait for the next election even though the GOP is primed to gain seats big time. This lack of topical references has unleashed a political silly season to where you guys don't know what to do with yourself so you brnig up mindless, moronic, juvenile topics like this.

Have you seen the people in this thread that agree with you?

About you? Yes.

How would you like it if someone wanted to put a balloon into one of your coranary arteries? They would start not in your chest but on your leg...yes your leg. Hitting your major arteries then threading it about 2 feet up and around and eventually into the blood vessels on the surface of your heart. Just imagine...your blood flowing against the foreign ballon that was surgically introduced into your extremity...then actually enters your most important organ...the seat of human life.

Yeah...That'll make you talk or just torture the living crap out of people....

Or it could just be something to relieve chest pain...it's called angioplasty and we do that nearly every day as well.

I could make anything done to you sound totally sinister.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Imagine the same procedure if you are tied to a bed, resisting the the attempt to hold your head steady, and refusing to swallow when the tube reaches your esophagus.

It wouldnt matter. You would swallow whether you wanted to or not.
I'm of the opinion that they should let em starve to death.
Only because I wouldnt want to force feed them....that would be unethical you know.

Which brings us back to my point, Obama is no better than Bush in the way he treats prisoners at Gitmo.

I wish.............

 

[Jarlaxle]

Just let them starve to death...problem solved.