Article

When Michelle Kosilek was convicted of murder in 1993, she wasn't known as Michelle.

She was Robert and was sentenced as Robert to life without the possibility of parole for strangling his wife. While in prison, Kosilek, a self-identified transgendered woman, legally changed her name. Later, Kosilek also had her gender condition recognized by the court.

Now, Kosilek, 57, an inmate at a maximum security all-male prison in Norfolk, Mass., would like the Massachusetts Department of Corrections to pay for her sex-reassignment surgery.

This topic was origonally posted by LostinTime but I've hyjacked it and modified it a litle to ask this:

Do you agree with this?  What do you think?

Steph

Steph

Got to love the title of the statute "Inmate Sex Change Prevention Act".

As far as that goes, I'm in favour of universal medical care anyway. But, given it's in the States, and they don't have universal medical care, I don't see why someone who killed her wife should get it paid for while honest people slave away and have to pay for their own.

I find it offensive that a doctor who knows nothing about it is calling it "cosmetic surgery". This is hardly a nose job or tummy tuck.

If it was Canada then I would say that the person deserves the same medical care that is covered for other residents of Canada. And I think that SRS should be covered by all provinces in Canada.

Dennis

I would say it would be fair for the prisons to cover it as soon as insurance companies start covering it for us regular folks.

Melissa

No, I dont think that the taxpayers should have to pay for this. She is in prison for murder and I think she has forfieted everything. When she gets out then she can pay for her surgery and go on with life.
Sheila

when the state does mine for free...we'll talk about it........
(tongue in cheek)

NO!
this dude killed someone...thusly removing all rights as a citizen...
he/she is not entitled to anything from taxpayer's money!!

imho

I agree- the tax payer's money should not be spent on a person in prison for such a violent crime when honest, law-abiding people who need the surgery and work so hard still cannot afford it.

I say a big fat NO on this one.  I was going to really go off on this post but I gotta stay calm (doctors orders).

Just imagine me ranting here instead.

No I don't agree.  A person who has no respect for human life is not entitled to anything in "my constitution" and in "my laws".

tinkerbell

A way to think of it whenever people say the "State should pay for it" , is who is the state ultimately - and it is its citizens.  So, question is would YOU want to pay for a murderer's sex reassignment?    I would reckon why should I pay for anyones? 
Sexual reassignment surgery is a decision of the person undertaking it - so why would that person expect others to pay?   Are there any compelling social reasons?   
None at all as I see it.

Dennis, sexual reassignment is defined as "cosmetic surgery" - for perfectly logical bureaucratic and/or legal reasons.  Its that way in Australia too.   The mental dimension in this is not considered for some reason.  Its a legal stupidity like the determination that pregnancy is an "illness"

Rana

Hi,

   I don't want to get into anything heavy here, but I'm going to give some background about myself in order to underscore my position.

   I live in massachusetts. I say this so that you know that this is an issue that I hear discussed among non-transpersons now and then.
   When I was 5 years old, I had to listen while my father was murdered in the room next to mine.

  My position is that the prisoner should receive HRT, but NOT a physical sex change. I don't want to pay taxes to make a murderer happy. I understand the HRT as a humanitarian issue because I can relate to the 'disorder'. It's not the same thing, but it is on the level of denying a Bipolar person, or a diabetic, thier medication.

   I have no love for murderers, however, once we put a person in custody, we have an obligation to balance punishment with mercy. Don't ask me where the mercy comes from. It is just there.

Quote from: RebeccaFog on October 01, 2006, 12:03:58 PM
Hi,

   I don't want to get into anything heavy here, but I'm going to give some background about myself in order to underscore my position.

   I live in massachusetts. I say this so that you know that this is an issue that I hear discussed among non-transpersons now and then.
   When I was 5 years old, I had to listen while my father was murdered in the room next to mine.

  My position is that the prisoner should receive HRT, but NOT a physical sex change. I don't want to pay taxes to make a murderer happy. I understand the HRT as a humanitarian issue because I can relate to the 'disorder'. It's not the same thing, but it is on the level of denying a Bipolar person, or a diabetic, thier medication.

   I have no love for murderers, however, once we put a person in custody, we have an obligation to balance punishment with mercy. Don't ask me where the mercy comes from. It is just there.

My god, Rebecca, I am so sorry for what you had to endure.
Posted on: October 01, 2006, 08:19:50 PM

---

I agree completely with what Dennis and Rebecca said.
All prisoners should be treated humanely and mercifully.
And GID is a physical ailment like any other and should be treated.
However, when law abiding citizens are denied state funded help, then a prisoner should not be eligible either.

Nero said:

QuoteMy god, Rebecca, I am so sorry for what you had to endure.

Thank you, Nero.
   It's been a long ugly trip. I think I finally worked it out when I was in my thirties.

Therapy, sure as there are other inmates who have therapy for other reasons.

HRT, I guess this is okay.

SRS.  No.  This is not something insurance normally covers and can add a lot of additional expense.  Not to mention I find it a horrible time when I (a productive citizen who follows the rules) gets worse medical treatment than someone who could not live within society.