Boston Herald.com


Judge orders examination of killer's electrolysis demand

By John Zaremba | Wednesday, October 24, 2012 - Updated 2 days ago


http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1061170074&srvc=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+bostonherald+%28Home+-+BostonHerald.com%29


The federal judge who last month ordered taxpayer-funded sex-change surgery for transsexual wife-killer Robert Kosilek is now forcing the state prison system to hire an expert to determine whether he needs electrolysis hair-removal treatment.

U.S. District Court Chief Judge Mark L. Wolf issued the order today, telling the Department of Corrections to identify the expert by Nov. 2 "to evaluate Kosilek to determine whether electrolysis is medically necessary, and/or to provide the electrolysis, if it is ordered to do so."

Mark Wolf is a great draw for the prisoner. Judge Wolf has no problem handing down decisions far ahead of their time. Should be interesting.

I know this is gonna sound mean but ya don't get no deals in the system................... ellen

Indeed.

It's a shame it isn't used more often rather than keeping some scumbag alive for the rest of their life.

OMG!  I just snotted out diet coke and choked on half of it.  That was soooo bad!  LMAO

NO MORE POSTING OF ELECTRIC CHAIR PICTURES PLEASE!

This thread is at risk of being locked, would be a shame to do so.

SandraJane, News Staff

No electrolysis for Mass. transgender prisoner

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2012/11/20/electrolysis-for-mass-transgender-prisoner/ESi5nlnE33GI8Z4JV5OuLO/story.html
11/20/12



BOSTON (AP) — A federal judge in Massachusetts on Tuesday rejected a request for additional hair-removal treatments for a transgender inmate who won a court order for taxpayer-funded sex-change surgery.

Judge Mark Wolf also ruled that the gender-reassignment surgery he ordered for Michelle Kosilek in September will be on hold while the Department of Correction appeals his ruling.

Quote from: Jayr on November 22, 2012, 06:14:31 AM
I say let her commit suicide.
Unless every law abiding trans girl gets all her transition paid for, she shouldn't get anything.
Already got to much.

That's my 2 cents.

That's the way I feel about the gal here within the Viginia prison system. Hey, she broke the law and now , taxpayers have to pay for her surgury? Really ellen

Quote from: eshaver on November 22, 2012, 12:32:26 PM
That's the way I feel about the gal here within the Viginia prison system. Hey, she broke the law and now , taxpayers have to pay for her surgury? Really ellen

I feel something completely different. She killed someone and gets free housing, clothes, heat, food, etc.? 

Are medical procedures for transsexuals medically necessary?  I'd say yes.

If they are, we need to give them to prisoners too, just as we would need to do CPR if they have a heart attack.

It shouldn't be a court's place to decide medically necessary.  We have medical professionals for that.

If the courts want to impose a sentence of no medical treatment for someone, so be it, if they can do so without violating the constitution.  But that's not what she was sentenced to.

I know this probably isn't popular, and certainly isn't going to satisfy the short-term views of general society.  And it sucks that a prisoner may have more rights than someone outside of prison - and that does need to be fixed.  Not by taking away the right to medical treatment for prisoners, but by providing the means for accessing medically necessary treatment for everyone.

Now if you want to make transition a non-medical issue, that's an opinion you have a right to.  But don't expect insurance to cover it and don't expect to get a right to something that isn't medically necessary.  But I think that would be a huge a mistake - it would make transition essentially a lifestyle choice.  Not good.

If a law abiding citizen can not have tax payer funded SRS, why should a lifer in prison?

Pay for our medically necessary surgeries before a prisoner.

Denying someone else a surgery won't get anyone else a surgery.  It's not like the government would say, "Oh, we didn't give so-and-so a surgery, so now lets give it to a deserving person."  It just would reinforce the idea that it's a cosmetic procedure that isn't truly necessary.

Fighting for the rights of people to have the surgery - as the life saving, medically necessary thing it is - has a lot more chance of making surgery accessible for everyone who needs it.  It's unfortunate that prisoners might get it before some.  But it either is or isn't necessary, and you can't exactly say "it's only necessary for people who behave properly."

I don't deny that SRS is a necessary procedure for mental health, but it sucks that prisoners can't actually be punished (as they should be) by being denied it.

I think this is one of those issues where it's easy to spark a person's frustration.

As has been mentioned, many law-abiding transgendered persons suffer from discrimination because of their identity: having been denied insurance coverage for surgeries and drugs, suffered through employment discrimination, and been denied service or even harassed in public places.  These are areas where many transgendered people feel, and rightfully so, that the government should step in to ensure they're protected equally under the law.  To be aware of these injustices, and then face the possibility of a convicted murdered getting treatment that law-abiding citizens can't, is surely infuriating.

But I think that anger is really just reflective of something else, particularly the dysfunction of our health care system.

Personally, I wouldn't mind if this person had received this treatment, _if_ things like insurance coverage for drugs and surgeries for transgendered people were available to all of us.

Ironically, despite my anger, if the courts _had_ ruled in this prisoner's favor, it may have helped us in the long term.  We need all the legal precedents we can get, of any size, shape, or form, which affirm the medical necessity of these treatments.  That's the only way we might eventually reach a point where insurance companies as a whole provide broad coverage.  That seems like the biggest legal prize which the transgender community desires at present.

Kupcake is right. Judge wolf's decision re srs, if affirmed by the court of appeals, establishes a precedent at least in that circuit, that srs is "medically necessary." I'd wager that the case of a prisoner seeking srs under whatever statute provides care for that prisoner (in her state,or even better,a federal prisoner), will be the first case before our US Supreme Court. Prisoners are more likely to have the time and the legal resources to pursue these matters.

It's often those cases at the fringes that define otherwise ambiguous terms in statutes. Prisoners, drug dealers,murderers, and religious zealots help define our rights under the constitution.  Ask yourself,  "Do I have the time and the money to pursue a lawsuit like this against my insurance company?"

To clarify, wolf did rule that srs was medically necessary. He ruled that electrolysis was not.

Why does this sound Lose Lose ? ellen