Scholarlink

Background <p>Hunger strikes are commonly reported in places of detention, and Australia has some of the most restrictive immigration detention policies globally. Despite this, little is known about hunger strikes among immigration detainees in Australia. We aimed to examine the prevalence, precipitants, characteristics, and management of hunger strikes among asylum seekers in Australian onshore immigration detention.</p> Methods <p>Via Freedom of Information, we obtained incident reports for all hunger strikes recorded in Australian onshore immigration detention between 3 October 2009 and 26 May 2011. Our primary methodological approach was content analysis. Data relating to hunger strike prevalence, detention type, location, gender, precipitating factors, and management of hunger strikes were extracted from each report. Hunger strike episode rates per 1000 asylum seekers were calculated using average adult population figures for 1) the entire onshore immigration detention network; 2) each held detention type (i.e., Immigration Detention Centres [IDCs], Immigration Transit Accommodation [ITA], Immigration Residential Housing [IRH], and Alternative Places of Detention [APODs]); and 3) each facility.</p> Results <p>Three hundred twenty eight hunger strikes were included in the analyses. The hunger strike episode rate was 76/1000 asylum seekers (95% CI 59 – 94). On average, hunger strike episode rates were highest in IDCs (86/1000, 95% CI 68 – 104), followed by APODs (36/1000, 95% CI 24 – 48). Individual facility rates of hunger strikes ranged from 21/1000 asylum seekers (95% CI 12 – 31) in Christmas Island APODs to 317/1000 asylum seekers (95% CI 282 – 352) in Maribyrnong IDC. Compared with the average across all other facilities, hunger strike episodes were most commonly reported in Curtin IDC (126) (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). The most reported precipitant was protest (75%). Details regarding the management of hunger strikes were noted in 7% of reports.</p> Conclusions <p>Our findings highlight concerningly high rates of hunger strikes among detained asylum seekers in Australia compared to other detained populations, with protest the most common trigger. Hunger strike management was inconsistent with international best practice. These findings highlight the deleterious impact of immigration detention on the physical and mental health of those detained. Further investigation, and policy and practice development consistent with ethical and human rights frameworks are warranted.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Hunger strikes among asylum seekers in Australian immigration detention: prevalence, precipitants, characteristics, and management

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年1月14日

查看全文
  • Elise McKenzie,
  • Rohan Borschmann,
  • Lauren Saling,
  • Kyli Hedrick

摘要

Background

Hunger strikes are commonly reported in places of detention, and Australia has some of the most restrictive immigration detention policies globally. Despite this, little is known about hunger strikes among immigration detainees in Australia. We aimed to examine the prevalence, precipitants, characteristics, and management of hunger strikes among asylum seekers in Australian onshore immigration detention.

Methods

Via Freedom of Information, we obtained incident reports for all hunger strikes recorded in Australian onshore immigration detention between 3 October 2009 and 26 May 2011. Our primary methodological approach was content analysis. Data relating to hunger strike prevalence, detention type, location, gender, precipitating factors, and management of hunger strikes were extracted from each report. Hunger strike episode rates per 1000 asylum seekers were calculated using average adult population figures for 1) the entire onshore immigration detention network; 2) each held detention type (i.e., Immigration Detention Centres [IDCs], Immigration Transit Accommodation [ITA], Immigration Residential Housing [IRH], and Alternative Places of Detention [APODs]); and 3) each facility.

Results

Three hundred twenty eight hunger strikes were included in the analyses. The hunger strike episode rate was 76/1000 asylum seekers (95% CI 59 – 94). On average, hunger strike episode rates were highest in IDCs (86/1000, 95% CI 68 – 104), followed by APODs (36/1000, 95% CI 24 – 48). Individual facility rates of hunger strikes ranged from 21/1000 asylum seekers (95% CI 12 – 31) in Christmas Island APODs to 317/1000 asylum seekers (95% CI 282 – 352) in Maribyrnong IDC. Compared with the average across all other facilities, hunger strike episodes were most commonly reported in Curtin IDC (126) (p < 0.001). The most reported precipitant was protest (75%). Details regarding the management of hunger strikes were noted in 7% of reports.

Conclusions

Our findings highlight concerningly high rates of hunger strikes among detained asylum seekers in Australia compared to other detained populations, with protest the most common trigger. Hunger strike management was inconsistent with international best practice. These findings highlight the deleterious impact of immigration detention on the physical and mental health of those detained. Further investigation, and policy and practice development consistent with ethical and human rights frameworks are warranted.