Susan's Place Transgender Resources

USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-26-inmate-sex-change_N.htm)
Tuesday, June 26, 2007

A trial that opened more than a year ago has become bogged down in Boston federal court. There have been hundreds of hours of testimony from witnesses, including 10 medical specialists paid tens of thousands of dollars. The judge himself even hired an expert to help him make sense of it all.

The question at the center of the case: Should a murderer serving life in prison get a sex-change operation at taxpayer expense?

Edit: Fixed dead link - Melissa

I personally say no, I think society is already paying enough for him to live the rest of their life in prison.

Nope.

We have deemed prisoners to have limited rights.  I happen to agree with that.

Cindi

Nope, not unless everyone in your country is covered. Ridiculous that prisoners should have more rights than the rest of you.

Dennis

Ok, but there is another side of it to consider. We well know the hell it is to go through life sometimes. I have a friend very active in this field who has a paper in press on several prisoners denied treatment, who self-castrated themselves. His point is that there are set guidelines for assessment and treatment, and they should be followed. It is considered reasonable to treat for other illnesses, and inexcusable not to follow accepted guidelines in prisoners. Why not for GID? Prisoners are people, worthy of compassion and care. In medical care, there is no difference in treatment and assessment given between prisoners and "the free".
Namaste, Tara

Except that other Americans have to pay for it. If it were Canada, I'd say sure, prisoners as well as the rest of us deserve equal medical treatment. But in the US, the rest of the populace has to pay for it. If the prisoner wants to pay for it, then fill yer boots.

Dennis

Hi,

   I think this topic was tackled briefly last year in this thread
https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,6220.msg49398.html#msg49398 (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,6220.msg49398.html#msg49398)

   It's about the same prisoner.

What if the person in question is innocent of the crime they are charged with?
It happens all of the time. Especially if the person is not white.

The government pays for all kinds of stuff. If someone is able to get the government to pay for a "mediacally necessary treatment," is that a bad thing? Why, because they were found guilty?

There was that horrible comparison made some time ago, about the fact that insurance companies would pay for viagra, but not birth control? Some group is always being favored over another, usually if the group in favor is white or if it is the majority in some way. I say more power to this person if you can get the government to pay for anything.

None of us have been paying off anything, with the exception of interest on a debt for some time. You could pay for surgery for every person seeking it out, for what the government wastes in one week on military BS.

My conclusion? Who cares. If it makes them happy, s'OK. Whatev. I've got more important things to worry about than whether some poor schnook in jail is getting over the system by making it pay for treatement. That is a small fish, not even worth fretting about.

Quote from: Dennis on June 26, 2007, 06:50:23 PMExcept that other Americans have to pay for it. If it were Canada, I'd say sure, prisoners as well as the rest of us deserve equal medical treatment. But in the US, the rest of the populace has to pay for it.

That doesn't make any sense. The "rest of the populace" pays taxes in Canada just like they do in America. The only difference is that in Canada those taxes are put towards a more strictly codified national health-care system.

I don't think any government should be in the business of providing health care. But American tax money already pays for all of a prisoner's other medical needs (transplants, traditional medication, abortions, etc.), so there is no reason it should not pay for HRT or SRS as well, if it is deemed by a professional as being necessary (which, as we all know, it often is).

No I dont think so not at all.

   I'm changing my attitude from "medicine Yes/ operation No" To "yeah, do the whole thing".  I was influenced by the Thundra. [What the Thundra Said]
   Also, I'm sure it is less expensive to just give the prisoner all the treatment necessary instead of having a thousand lawsuits and having the issue dragged on for 20 years.

  We all know that eventually, it will be acceptable to allow prisoners SRS. May as well just avoid the drawn out battle and do it. I doubt they will find much enjoyment getting what they want, but still spending decades in prison. It will be quieter to just allow it and then other lifers won't be parading their way through the courts.

   There might have to be a rule, though, that only lifers can get treatment, otherwise, you may have the occasional messed up person knocking over a bank expecting to get treated and released in 5 years.

Yes, it grates a bit that a prisoner can get something that I may have to struggle for years to pay for myself, and yet, if we are going to take the position that transitioning is a medical necessity for some people, and if we are going to allow prisoners medical and psychological care and treatment, then I don't see how we can reasonably exclude SRS from that.  It is the imprisonment itself that is supposed to be the punishment, right?  I certainly don't believe prisoners ought to be pampered or made excessively comfortable, but we can't really provide medical treatment selectively from a punitive stance; it really doesn't make sense, as much as it might be somehow satisfying. 

Quote from: RebeccaFog on June 26, 2007, 10:11:08 PM
Hi,

   I think this topic was tackled briefly last year in this thread
https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,6220.msg49398.html#msg49398 (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,6220.msg49398.html#msg49398)

   It's about the same prisoner.

I was just posting a news article from yesterday that I found that hadn't been posted.  The question at the end was just part of the excerpt.  It appears you are correct in that this is about the same person, but it's a different article.

Quote


The question at the center of the case: Should a murderer serving life in prison get a sex-change operation at taxpayer expense?

Absolutely not. If anyone should be getting those services it should be free, law-abiding TS's not someone that is in prison.


edit; fixed quote tag -karen

Hasn't the trial cost like $50,000+ already, and it still has some to go?  What's SRS cost?  Is this part of the retribution we (society) have to extract from immoral people who break our basic laws (whatever your definition of 'basic' is)?

Food for thought...

Karen 

QuoteYes, it grates a bit that a prisoner can get something that I may have to struggle for years to pay for myself,

It's human nature to be jealous of someone that has something that you do not. But that argument, is so petty, and so unworthy of the people on this forum, that I'm not going to lower myself to even consider such a childish and spiteful POV.

It sucks that some people get SRS, and some do not. But trying to deny a medical service to someone based on your own inability to obtain that same service, based on justice and righteousness and all that hoo-hah, is a completely specious argument IMNSHO. Modern day justice is meted out based on wealth, not fairness.

I challenge the people here to rise above the pettiness that the system uses to beat down the less fortunate, and to seperate us from the more noble side of our nature.

Quote from: Thundra on June 27, 2007, 09:21:15 PM

QuoteYes, it grates a bit that a prisoner can get something that I may have to struggle for years to pay for myself,

It's human nature to be jealous of someone that has something that you do not. But that argument, is so petty, and so unworthy of the people on this forum, that I'm not going to lower myself to even consider such a childish and spiteful POV.

It sucks that some people get SRS, and some do not. But trying to deny a medical service to someone based on your own inability to obtain that same service, based on justice and righteousness and all that hoo-hah, is a completely specious argument IMNSHO. Modern day justice is meted out based on wealth, not fairness.

I challenge the people here to rise above the pettiness that the system uses to beat down the less fortunate, and to seperate us from the more noble side of our nature.

I accept your challenge and have done so accordingly.  Seriously.

Quote from: Thundra on June 27, 2007, 09:21:15 PM

QuoteYes, it grates a bit that a prisoner can get something that I may have to struggle for years to pay for myself,

It's human nature to be jealous of someone that has something that you do not. But that argument, is so petty, and so unworthy of the people on this forum, that I'm not going to lower myself to even consider such a childish and spiteful POV.

It sucks that some people get SRS, and some do not. But trying to deny a medical service to someone based on your own inability to obtain that same service, based on justice and righteousness and all that hoo-hah, is a completely specious argument IMNSHO. Modern day justice is meted out based on wealth, not fairness.

I challenge the people here to rise above the pettiness that the system uses to beat down the less fortunate, and to seperate us from the more noble side of our nature.

Just for the record, since you quoted from my post, that line you singled out was simply my emotional response, and not my "argument" --my position, after stating said emotional response, was that the prisoner should not be denied the surgery on that ground.  I don't really get what point you were trying to make by quoting me.