You can hydrate someone rectally apparently, for example:

(from: http://www.eperc.mcw.edu/EPERC/FastFactsIndex/ff_134.htm )

It describes ways to hydrate people at the end of life or advanced cancer patients NOT a routine hydration procedure.

rectal "hydration," for the reason that it doesn't hydrate. The usual outcome of rectal "hydration" is diarrhea.

And these were forced on people who were hanging upside down.

The only valid ways to "rehydrate" someone are to either have them drink water of with a intraveinous drip. Butt feeding is neither feeding nor hydration. It is humiliating torture, pure and simple. Now whenever I see Hayden's picture or even read his name, my bullshit meter goes off-- ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding

He is a despicable man. There is not a rung in hell low enough for Gen Hayden. But I'm sure he knows a great deal about peoples' butts, because he probably spent a great portion of his career kissing them. He even looks like an ass kisser.

It does not absorb nutrients, however. That is done in the small intestine.

Also note the very small volume of water cited in your link. Note that if you up the volume or speed, you'll be giving an enema.

The bottom line is that this was not done as a valid medical procedure. It was sodomy with the intent to humiliate.

Any tiny benefit of hydration, which is so minimal it's a ridiculous thing to even bring up, is outweighed by the pain and humiliation. Seriously?

Please explain when it would be the case that the other resources weren't available. For example, in the case of those tortured, no medical justification was noted.

They were apparently protesting by refusing food or water, that's all.

There was no medical indication for buttwatering, and no advantage to it over, say, a PEG tube or an IV or a glass of water.

The point is rectal hydration itself is actually a medical procedure even though it should be only
used in rare cases.

It was torture. Like the good doctor said.

I know you agree. Just saying don't need new specific laws, just need to enforce the existing ones and send these people away so that an executive CANNOT be issued to permit torture again.

right after the heat death of the universe. Law are useless when those charged with their enforcement feel no compunction to obey, much less enforce, them.

Not my field, but CVT and Feinstein appear to hold views differing from yours.

Incidentally, isn't "The CENTER for VICTIMS of TORTURE" the premier NGO on torture?

http://www.cvt.org/who-we-are/history
http://www.cvt.org/news-events/press-releases
http://www.cvt.org/news-events/in-the-news

http://cvt.org/news-events/press-releases/amnesty-international-leader-next-executive-director-center-victims
http://www.cvt.org/news-events/press-releases/douglas-johnson-leave-his-position-executive-director-center-victims
...CVT’s budget has grown from $212,000 in 1987 to more than $10 million in 2011

I worked as a first aid volunteer for the MS 150, a charity 150 mile bike ride for the MS Society. Near the end of a very long day, my uncle and I were asked to transport a young guy to the hospital in Moose Lake. He had neglected to stay hydrated during the ride and was no longer able to keep any fluids down. Every sip of water that he took, he promptly threw up.

At the hospital, after a quick exam, the doctor prescribed an enema to rehydrate him. It is less invasive than an IV, it does not involve making a hole in the body. Personally, I don't mind needles.

Before any one tries to twist that into what they want to read, I'm not saying anything about torture, I'm just saying that rectal rehydration is possible and a valid medical procedure, when used for appropriate reasons.

I can't think of a valid reason that a prisoner would become dehydrated enough to warrant use of the procedure.

Did you read the part where I that I was not talking about torture?

What I am saying is that, in some cases, it is a valid procedure. There are literally hundreds of stories out there right now saying it is never valid. I'm addressing that aspect only. To say that is never valid, is factually incorrect.

I even added that I can not think of a reason why a prisoner would become dehydrated such that doing thos procedure would become valid.

They do make mistakes and/or follow non evidence based procedures.

If not, I'll take his word.

and have never seen that procedure used as a first line for rehydration. IV fluids would be the most commonly used procedure.

What about situations where an IV is not possible or practical. What if you didn't have all the equipment needed for an IV?

As a nurse, you know that the intestine will absorb water. For those with no medical knowledge, you are presented with evidence every time you you don't have diarrhea... Hell, the water used doesn't even need to be that particularly clean, much less sterile.

For the record, since lots of DUers seem to like to read the garbage from their own minds into other's posts, I'm not defending the use of this procedure by the CIA, I'm only stating that there is crappy (pun intended) reporting occurring saying that rectal rehydration is NEVER valid.

People that throw absolutes around are very often speaking from emotion rather than science.

I have never seen this used as a first line of rehydration. I have never seen it used for hydration at all. One can get an IV in by one method or another almost 100 percent of the time. It is more efficient and I am sure that the CIA would have had no problem getting that equipment if they really wanted to hydrate someone using modern techniques.

or even third-best option, said Allen Keller, director of the Bellevue/New York University Program for Survivors of Torture. It’s clear in the context of the report that there were ulterior motives in the decision to use the technique, he said."


But y'know, the water just 'sloshes up' into the large intestine.

Central Intelligence Agency interrogators made clear that the practice, justified as a way to hydrate prisoners who refused to eat, wasn’t simply for their health. It was identified as a means of “behavior control” by CIA medical officers that could hasten the end of hunger strikes, according to the documents.




“While IV infusion is safe and effective, we were impressed with the ancillary effectiveness of rectal infusion on ending the water refusal in a similar case,” one of the officers wrote, according to an executive summary of the 6,000-page report, originally approved in December 2012 and now declassified.

‘Sloshing Up’

The same officer described how the procedure was carried out:

“Regarding the rectal tube, if you place it and open up the IV tubing, the flow will self-regulate, sloshing up the large intestines,” he wrote.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-10/rectal-feeding-of-detainees-called-abuse-with-guise-of-treatment.html

You conveniently neglected the situation where one does not have IV equipment.

Do you really want to make the argument that the in no situation, ever, that rectal rehydration would not be valid?

One more time, I'm not talking about the CIA's use of this procedure. just that the new's report's claims that it is never valid is wrong.

hospitals.

Never is a very high standard to meet. You are willing to claim there is not a single instance, ever, in the entire world?

The "doctors say" probably qualified their statements, but the reporters thought that might be too confusing for some people... and left out the qualifications. Appaerently, some people bit real hard on that hook and ignorantly insist, based only on he reports, that rectal hydration is never used...

One is in really tough shape to argue only with their emotions rather than facts.

article, we must conclude that one didn't actually read the article.

Continuing to argue will not make you correct.

subject line is.

"Two of the most brutal CIA interrogation tactics revealed in the Senate’s report on torture are little-known techniques called “rectal feeding” and “rectal hydration.” The backlash to the exposure of the techniques was swift, but former CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden defended them Thursday as “medical procedures” necessary to get fluids into dehydrated detainees and were not used as “a method of interrogation.”"

a (deliberate?) confusion between rectal feeding and rectal hydration, though the article is titled as though it were about rectal hydration.

Two of the most brutal CIA interrogation tactics revealed in the Senate’s report on torture are little-known techniques called “rectal feeding” and “rectal hydration.” The backlash to the exposure of the techniques was swift, but former CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden defended them Thursday as “medical procedures” necessary to get fluids into dehydrated detainees and were not used as “a method of interrogation.”

Doctors and psychiatrists, however, said they have zero medical application and are nothing more than full-bore torture methods that no medical professional should ever be a party to. More than that, they are well-documented forms of painful, humiliating torture that have been used since the Middle Ages and the Inquisition, doctors said.

“This is a variation on a medieval form of torture in which the intestines were swollen up with fluid in order to cause pain," said Dr. Steven Miles, a professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota Medical School and board member of the Center for Victims of Torture, both of which are in Minneapolis. "You can’t feed somebody this way. And so, for the U.S. government to claim that this is some sort of feeding technique, that’s just totally bizarre,” he said. “Because there is no physiological way for any nutrients to be absorbed in the colon, any medical participation in this rectal feeding procedure is medical participation in torture.”

You bolded it.

Hydration OCCURS in the large intestine. That is a fact that no amount of whining and moaning can change.

The large intestine does not care what direction the water comes from. That is another fact.

Enemas are given for a variety of reasons, not just "to make people SHIT", another fact.

You have been incredibly persistent in posting falsehoods. I know your feelings are hurt, but facts don't care.




.

Furthermore, douching the rectum with water doesn't have the same effect as normal digestion through the SI & LI. In fact, it often has a contradictory effect.

Nice try on a Hail Mary to change the topic, but it's irrelevant.

The LI is designed to absorb a small amount of water only, that's the relevance.

And absorption during digestion is normal and most effective design. As opposed to absorption via enema.

You know what you are desperately googling to try to save face.

you don't. And you're boring.

Fantasies and railing at truth is interesting to those with no knowledge.

Good luck in your future endeavors and just keep judging the world on your feelings...

Some day, you might feel the urge to come out from that bridge.

millions of citations going back to the 1800s.

when they had IV technique available.

The main outcome of enema is shit; typically diarrhetic shit, which pulls water OUT of the body.

Your argument from incredulity doesn't cut it. It would not pull more water out of the body than it puts in. Simple osmotic pressure easily explains why your assertion is flat out wrong.

Look, it is clearly not the first goto, it's messy and people in nice clean clothes would much rather punch a hole through one's body and inject fluids directly into your bloodstream. They are trusting that they can control any infections they caused by the invasive procedure, rather than possibly getting their nice clean clothes dirty. Besides, the materials used for an IV can be charged at a much higher rate and are less labor intensive than a tube and some water.

There ARE situations where it is warranted, making the reports that it is NEVER warranted factually incorrect. That does not say any thing about the use by the CIA. Just that the reporting is wrong in saying that it is never valid.

tube? Can be done easily, without anesthesia, and much better hydration than butt feed.

You have to assume patient can't take anything by mouth, cant take anything IV, and can't tolerate a PEG. Which means they couldn't EAT, either.

And that the hydration achieved by butt-tube in that medically perilous situation would be worth it.

Maybe there's such a situation, but I can't think of it off the top of my head.

Enemas are given to make people SHIT, not to hydrate them.

What if you aren't in a hospital? You are claiming that rectal rehydration is never valid.

I have stated that I have witnessed it prescribed. They admitted the guy, so we did not stick around ( we got about 4 hours sleep that night) but I did hear that the guy completed the second half of the ride along with every one else.

Just because you think it is icky and can't imagine things doesn't make invalid 100% of the time.

do IVs, and certainly a place like Guantanamo would have that capacity.

If one isn't in a hospital and needs hydration, first line would be to drink a fucking glass of water.

I've never heard of a hospital doing enemas for hydration, and it has nothing to do with finding it 'icky,' more with finding it useless and possibly counter-productive.

Just because you can't imagine something doesn't make it fact.

Have you met Megan Fox? Not the actress, the conservative creationist.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/watch-a-home-schooler-mom-go-through-a-science-museum-and-destroy-evolution/

She likes to argue from incredulity as well.


Here's something else which just might expand you imagination.
http://www.jpsmjournal.com/article/S0885-3924%2897%2900367-9/abstract

without IV capability? Certainly not in the US or Europe.

And who are these prisoners who can't drink? There weren't any. They were hydrating them via butt because they were REFUSING to drink, not because they were medically incapable of drinking.

I have repeatedly said I am not talking about the CIA's use of this procedure.

I am saying the the reporting that the procedure is NEVER valid is factually incorrect. By arguing with me, you are taking the position that rectal hydration is never, ever valid.

Your arguments have all been, I've never seen, I've never heard, it possibly. Fact is, you have not seen, you have not heard everything and that you have a lack of knowledge.

Enemas are used for a variety of purposes, one of which is hydration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enema

Have a nice evening, go watch some of Megan Fox's videos, you would probably get along well with her.

You seem more the megan fox type to me.

There exist instances where it is appropriate treatment, therefore the reports claim that it is never valid are incorrect.

Lazy, bad reporting, a simple fact.

And once more. for the context challenged, that has nothing to do with the CIA's use of the technique.

Several of your statements have demonstrated your lack of understanding. Don't feel bad, ignorance is simply lack of knowledge, not stupidity.

I've provided you with several links to enlighten your unawareness, I suspect that you haven't read them. Feel free to blunder on in ignorance, or check out the links I provided.

And my story is 100% fact, I do not appreciate you calling me a liar.

Basically, rectal hydration is NEVER used except in very limited circumstances, none of which apply in the cases under discussion.

NEVER, except... The report are saying NEVER. You just proved my point. Thank you.

and those unwilling to admit it,

knowledgable don't need to be arrogant.

Enough said.

entire medical literature.

You certainly have devoted a lot of time to insisting that someone, somewhere, under some circumstance is using rectal hydration for some legitimate purpose.

But knowing, as anyone with a medical background does, that the circumstances would have to be:

1. A patient who can't hydrate themselves by drinking/swallowing
2. No access to a relatively modern hospital with IV capability (which means most hospitals in the world)
3. No access to tube feeding/PEG tube technique
4. The minimal hydration to be gained via rectal hydration is worth the tradeoff in discomfort and humiliation = classes of patients 'rectal hydration' is inappropriate for. For example, rectal hydration for terminal patients? Really? Mouth swabs and small sips are easier, cheaper, and more dignified.

So what are the useful circumstances for rectal hydration. You keep insisting they exist, but you never say what they are.

Maybe because you don't know, irregardless of your 'story' about the hospital doctor who used the technique for unknown reasons you never spelled out.

Except the doc would have had to make a 'hole' in the patient. lol.

You are funny...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MEDLINE

Changing your tune again? So which is it? Only a couple? Or none? The entire medical literature or just a hefty subset?

You are being quite inconsistent...

My argument is the same as it ever was. It is possible, it has been used and the article claimed that it is never used. You have chosen to defend the "Never" (Silly of you, absolutes rarely are) and added the bonus of it being not possible (totally laughable.) You have been proven wrong again and again.

been able to come up with don't reference actual practice.

There are also a couple from around 1913.

Put up or shut up, you're boring and stupid as hell.

You are not only inconsistent, you are wrong.

NEVER means Never, ever. Not once ever in the entire history of the world. Hell, I even handed you a video, admittedly it didn't show the actual process. And you still claim it's never been done and can't be done.

I know I'll never be able to convince someone so committed to ignoring evidence, so I'll leave you to continue on tilting at windmills and cursing the clouds...

Have a Merry and please stay out of situations where you might get dehydrated and not have someone with IV experience and equipment or pure water. In those cases, even someone who needs both hands and a flashlight to find their ass needs only a tube and some water you wouldn't give to a stray dog...

The situation you mention is not the situation of the CIA torturers.

And I don't believe your story about a hospital doctor doing rectal hydration either.

We can read & know exactly what you are defending.

BTW, cool story bro

I'm not defending, I'm attacking the incredible laziness and dishonesty of the reports saying that rectal hydration is never valid. That quite simply is not true.

The CIA's use of the process has nothing to do with what I have repeatedly said. If you want to create some fantasy that I'm defending them, think again. Their use was likely not not for medical reasons (at a minimum, not for reasons that they did not cause) and therefore torture.

Try reading what I actually said, rather than what you would be to believe I said.

Neither say it *is* used though, just that it could be.

http://www.jpsmjournal.com/action/doSearch?searchType=quick&searchText=proctoclysis&occurrences=all&journalCode=jps&searchScope=fullSite

And my links, beyond my story say that it HAS BEEN used, which makes you claim of NEVER look quite weak and untrue.

It *was* used -- in 1909.

I'm still waiting on an apology....

You probably won't make it past the warning saying that it contains material ht may be disturbing to some viewers, but Bears Grylls also says you lack knowledge...

but medical citations don't show it being used in modern times.

Why am I not surprised?

Look, I know your feelings are hurt having been proved wrong so many times, but really...

Your posts have been "I don't think", "I doubt", "I can't think"...

Someone's be doing nothing but babbling from the get go...

But he wasn't. And he isn't. Apparently, we just "tortured some folks", and "some of these folks ( the CIA ) are patriots".

Nothing to see here people. Move along.

Watch the Charlie Rose interview with McCain which aired on Friday 12/12 and read the Guardian/BBC expose. Remember that resignation? Yeah, it was the affair.

He said he ended some of the enhanced interrogation techniques aka torture.

...if you catch my drift. The Obama DOJ chased down THIS individual despite mistrial (and vanishing witnesses like in HBO's The Wire): http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-bergrin-sentenced-to-life-in-prison-2013-9 Minuscule scale and scope, relatively speaking, to the discussion at hand except for those directly involved.

My guess is that some people (and their associates) ruthless enough to commit war crimes don't just roll over and say "Yes, you've got me," but maybe that's because I read fiction like David Baldacci (Deliver Us From Evil, The Innocent, The Hit) and Barry Eisler ( http://www.barryeisler.com/inside-out.php http://www.barryeisler.com/inside-out-sources.php http://www.barryeisler.com/faultline.php ), have very keen observational skills, and an active imagination. I also don't believe the public knows everything that's happening.

[center]http://www.barryeisler.com/inside-out-bibliography.php

[/center]

Escapist fiction writer meets the President: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025889104#post53

So how do any of us know he's not?

Incidentally remember Valerie Plame? I think she's one of the "patriotic folks" Obama was referencing.

I think at this point, none of us is moving along. There's a hell of a groundswell beginning.

One doesn't have to shout and scream to be "furious". The nonchalant way he said that "we tortured some folks" is just plain wrong.

And yours only guessing he was referring to that person. Perheps it would have helped if he was a bit specific.

Gah.. never mind. I know yoh have a different opinion than me, and that's fine. To each their own

Just like water boarding is not an interrogation technique, it's torture.

Therein lies the insult to a normal humans intelligence.

NAZI as all hell.

...who recognized some of these techniques as literally Inquisitorial from the moment their descriptions first hit the news during the BushCheney era.

God save us all.

Torture of the most vile - and people are defending this shit.

Apparently there is a nice long line of amoral assholes waiting their turn.

And now we watch them defend this and very few have the nerve to stand up and say what is plainly in front of our faces.

It would have been iv

change your conclusion?

Otherwise give gatorade

extremely painful to get fed via rectum? sounds so
horrendous - must hurt.

of the nausea involving with taking liquids orally.

doing the rectal feeding - whoever was trying to justify said it
was because the people were too nauseated to take liquids
orally. However, like med professionals have said - just IV
if you are that worried about hydration.

Bottom line, it is a hideous, dehumanizing, sexually abusive
technique that is very painful. And, supposedly, no
nutrients can be absorbed by the colon.

Sick MF's IMHO

we need to be celebrating because politics between the US and Cuba have thawed.

That is so damn amazing, we are supposed to turn a blind eye to that icky torture thing that no one except the person that was a whistle blower went to jail for. Oh wait, TWO went to prison for it.

But hey, it's unfortunate that people have to be extraordinarily renditioned, tortured and be sent to black sites.

The US doesn't do that.

At least the US I have always believed in didn't do that, but I'm getting the naivete knocked off of me in a hard way.