Human reason and law

It seems to reject the prohibition of forbidden foods, but not really from the fourth generation. Rather, it is because in the case of hunger, the halakha does not require you to eat what is not defined as natural food (that is why the Torah, when it wants to talk about absolute hunger, talks about a woman eating her placenta that comes out between her legs, and not about eating donkeys. Because donkeys are already gone. They are the preferred option). Similarly, the poskim ruled that a patient who is in danger can drink on Yom Kippur and is not required to receive intravenous fluids, even though such an infusion is certainly not important for eliminating torture and is certainly not a task from the Torah. Rather, when there is hunger and thirst that lead to pikuach nefesh, a person is permitted to follow the natural path and eat natural food, even though this option involves a more severe prohibition, and they do not require an unnatural solution to be implemented.

I disagree. Why not demand that one eat something that is not food? As long as it is nutritious, it is food and there is no reason not to eat it. Of course, if a person is unable to eat it, then this is not a solution and then he must go beyond the no, but not because it is better but because for him it is the only option.
The same applies to transfusions. I disagree there too. If a person can receive a transfusion and not violate a severe prohibition, there is no reason to allow him to drink or eat.

https://mikyab.net/שות/באל-דור-רביי/