Gitanjali J. Angmo said that doctors should provide no medical treatment to activist Sonam Wangchuk without family consent following his hospitalization [1].
The request comes after Wangchuk was shifted to Safdarjung Hospital in Delhi after participating in a prolonged hunger strike [1], [2]. This intervention highlights the tension between emergency medical protocols and the personal autonomy of activists engaged in hunger strikes.
Angmo said that no oral or intravenous medical treatment should be administered to her husband without the family's explicit agreement [1], [2]. The activist was taken to the facility after police intervention during his protest [2].
The situation at Safdarjung Hospital underscores the legal and ethical complexities surrounding the treatment of patients who have intentionally abstained from food for political reasons. In such cases, medical staff often face conflicting mandates between the duty to preserve life and the patient's or family's right to refuse intervention.
Wangchuk has used hunger strikes as a tool for political advocacy. The current hospitalization follows a period of fasting that necessitated medical oversight to monitor his vital signs and overall health [1].
Family members remained at the hospital to ensure that the medical team adhered to their requests regarding the administration of fluids, or medication [2]. The demand for consent is intended to prevent the forced breaking of the hunger strike through medical means [1].
“No oral or intravenous medical treatment be given to him without the family’s consent.”
This incident reflects the broader struggle over bodily autonomy and the right to protest via hunger strikes. When activists are forcibly hospitalized, the conflict between clinical necessity and the political nature of the fast often leads to legal disputes over informed consent and the right to refuse life-sustaining treatment.
