Change of dichotomy
This simple dichotomy changed drastically with the advent of the hungers strikes in Turkey. Here was a situation where prisoners were undoubtedly "eating on the side", as they lasted much longer than the known maximum duration of around 70 days of total fasting before death. Some Turkish prisoners died after three or four months, sometimes even after longer periods of time. Obviously they were taking some nourishment, although ultimately this was insufficient for survival. More to the point, they were just as determined to prolong their fasting to the fatal outcome if their demands were not met. (They were not.) In the case of turkey, there was no decision to break the strikes by force-feeding.
The Turkish hunger strikes were called, by the prisoners themselves, "death fasts" – leaving no doubt as to the determination of their protest. Visibly, the Turkish prisoners, having understood full well that the element of time was crucial for putting pressure on the authorities, were taking some food so as to prolong their fasting as long as they could. The longer the protest dragged out, the more pressure, they thought, would put upon the authorities to make them listen to their demands. It was just as obvious that there was nothing spurious about their fasting, as they died from the complications of what was a form of chronic malnutrition[1].
The clinical realisation that one could die not only from "total fasting" but also from prolonged "non-total fasting" would seem obvious from a medical point of view. It remains that before the Turkish hunger strikes, prisoners usually never died from hunger strikes, except in those extreme cases where the fasting was indeed total.