A coordinated political hunger strike by Palestine Action activists has ignited significant ethical debates among medical professionals and drawn comparisons to the fatal 1981 IRA hunger strike. Currently, several activists have reached advanced stages of their fast, prompting grave concerns about their health and the government's handling of the situation.

Medical professionals, including Dr. David Nicholl, Dr. John Kalk, and Dr. Jonathan Fluxman, have voiced profound ethical concerns regarding the medical management of these hunger strikers. Key ethical issues include respecting consent, maintaining confidentiality, assessing mental capacity, and vigilant monitoring for coercion within the doctor-patient relationship. Many of these prisoners have not faced trial, with some dates set as late as 2027, highlighting the well-known damaging effects of prolonged remand on mental health. In this context, voluntary total fasting may be perceived as their only means of protest against detention. Doctors emphasize the essential need for a valid advanced directive to guide medical management should a striker lose mental capacity.

Dr. John Kalk, a retired consultant physician, recalled a stance known as the “Kalk refusal,” which emerged after the 1989 anti-apartheid hunger strikes. This principle dictates that medical professionals refuse to discharge hunger-striking patients from hospital unless the patient explicitly wishes to return to prison, protecting them from state custody under medical ethics. The moral burden on healthcare staff is significant; the doctor of IRA hunger striker Bobby Sands, who died in 1981, later took his own life, underscoring the immense psychological toll.

Comments by Prisons Minister Lord Timpson, stating the government is