MA Judge Approves First-Ever Sex Reassignment Surgery for Transgendered Inmate

[mandrina]

Fine the lawyers.  You can't use another states law (Oregon) as a basis for asserting a claim in MA.  

Tossed on 10th Amendment standing grounds.  Where is the Federal concern here?

I was using state as in state (the nation as a whole) or state (1 of 50 such provinces like entities called states in the US).  I could probably provide 51 such lines, one from each state and one from the federal level.
 
I don't know how it got into federal courts, and the idea is the same in all the states and the fed, the state (as in USA or its individuals) is obligated morally and legal to provide medical care to those it incarcerates.  It's up to the courts  to decide the limits of the medical care when the 'state' in question does not automatically give the inmate what he wants and the inmate then sues.

So your point is?

[sailor]

I was using state as in state (the nation as a whole) or state (1 of 50 such provinces like entities called states in the US).  I could probably provide 51 such lines, one from each state and one from the federal level.
 
I don't know how it got into federal courts, and the idea is the same in all the states and the fed, the state (as in USA or its individuals) is obligated morally and legal to provide medical care to those it incarcerates.  It's up to the courts  to decide the limits of the medical care when the 'state' in question does not automatically give the inmate what he wants and the inmate then sues.

So your point is?

 
State of Oregon requires medical care under it's state law.  What is the law in MA though?  I can find all sorts of laws in different states also. That does not mean I can sue Virginia over a law in MA.

[mandrina]

State of Oregon requires medical care under it's state law.  What is the law in MA though?  I can find all sorts of laws in different states also. That does not mean I can sue Virginia over a law in MA.

 
whichh as nothing to do with the question as it was raised by madzealot.  apparently a federal judge has said the the entity incarcerating this person must pay for this.  Madzealot wants to know why the taxpayers of that entity must pay for this.  my answer was intended to be general using the statement off the letterhead of the state of oregon, under to probably correct assumption that all the states and the federal government have that particular requirement.  The question being decided by the courts is whether or not sex reassignment surgery is actually required under the laws of the particular entity incarcerating our criminal.  I would suspect he is in federal prison, because it's in federal court, but I haven't actually read the article, so so far as I know, he could be serving his time in the champaign county jail and the federal judge has just said that champaign county has to pay for it.

The answer in this case is really really simple and you are simply going off on tangents that have nothing to do with the answer.

[sailor]

whichh as nothing to do with the question as it was raised by madzealot.  apparently a federal judge has said the the entity incarcerating this person must pay for this.  Madzealot wants to know why the taxpayers of that entity must pay for this.  my answer was intended to be general using the statement off the letterhead of the state of oregon, under to probably correct assumption that all the states and the federal government have that particular requirement.  The question being decided by the courts is whether or not sex reassignment surgery is actually required under the laws of the particular entity incarcerating our criminal.  I would suspect he is in federal prison, because it's in federal court, but I haven't actually read the article, so so far as I know, he could be serving his time in the champaign county jail and the federal judge has just said that champaign county has to pay for it.

The answer in this case is really really simple and you are simply going off on tangents that have nothing to do with the answer.

 
That is what I'm challenging.  Oregon requires it, but that does not mean that Mass has to.

If he was in Federal prison, then neither Oregon nor MA law would apply.

Oh, for a bit of actual analysis try this:
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/09/04/judge-orders-sex-change-operation-for-federal-prisoner/

It's an 8th Amendment claim. It also has a copy of the 126 page decision.

[wadjet]

Fine the lawyers.  You can't use another states law (Oregon) as a basis for asserting a claim in MA.  

 
It has nothing to do with Lawyers. (Whom I notice you really hate.)

It is the Judge's position to interpret the law. That is his job. His only job, really.

It would be considered cruel and unusual punishment to force a prisoner to live with another untreated diagnosis. Say, Schizophrenia. Depression. Anything.

The prison would need to treat it as per the recommended treatment options, and since prisons are funded by tax money, tax payers are paying for it. They always are. That's not new.

As I said in the first place, diagnoses are made with the DSM in this country. If his diagnosis is legitimate, as claimed by his lawyer and doctor, I assume, the the prison is legally required to treat it. And if the recommended treatment is sex-reassignment, QED.

The judge made the correct decision per the law. It has nothing to do with morals OR finances.

[sailor]

It has nothing to do with Lawyers. (Whom I notice you really hate.)

It is the Judge's position to interpret the law. That is his job. His only job, really.

It would be considered cruel and unusual punishment to force a prisoner to live with another untreated diagnosis. Say, Schizophrenia. Depression. Anything.

The prison would need to treat it as per the recommended treatment options, and since prisons are funded by tax money, tax payers are paying for it. They always are. That's not new.

As I said in the first place, diagnoses are made with the DSM in this country. If his diagnosis is legitimate, as claimed by his lawyer and doctor, I assume, the the prison is legally required to treat it. And if the recommended treatment is sex-reassignment, QED.

The judge made the correct decision per the law. It has nothing to do with morals OR finances.

 
There is the question of whether the judge's interpretation of the law (in this case an 8th Amendment claim of cruel and unusual punishment) is legally correct.  We'd have to read the judge's opinion to see how he supported his ruling.  The appeals court will handle that if they think there is some doubt.

Other than that, I agree with your post.

[mandrina]

That is what I'm challenging.  Oregon requires it, but that does not mean that Mass has to.

If he was in Federal prison, then neither Oregon nor MA law would apply.

Oh, for a bit of actual analysis try this:
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/09/04/judge-orders-sex-change-operation-for-federal-prisoner/

It's an 8th Amendment claim. It also has a copy of the 126 page decision.

 
wadjet said what I meant.  You were getting specific when I was using a specific state for a general question (since at that time I hadn't looked well enough to see which state it was).  And in this case, the general rules are the same, but obviously, they would be using the appropriate state's laws in the ruling and in any appeal, which I'm sure there will be.

[MadZealot]

There is the question of whether the judge's interpretation of the law (in this case an 8th Amendment claim of cruel and unusual punishment) is legally correct.  

 
According to the judge, the inmate possesses an innate "Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical care."  The 8th Amendment reads:  "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."  Nothing in there about a convict being entitlemed to thousands of dollars' worth of medical care-- regardless of the affliction.  

Yes, legal arguments can be made, if MA has legal principle in place like Oregon has, and if the DSM supports that argument.  I'm more interested in the moral obligation however, if any.

[wadjet]

Yes, legal arguments can be made, if MA has legal principle in place like Oregon has, and if the DSM supports that argument.  I'm more interested in the moral obligation however, if any.

 
They did note that this individual has attempted suicide, as well as twice attempting to castrate themselves. That was enough to convince me. Some trans people are okay on a more grey-area of the gender/sex spectrum. Some people aren't.

If I have time today, I might take a look at that report.

[wadjet]

 
Coincidentally, a gaming friend of my husband's is a lawyer; he just gave his crew (and us) a lecture on this issue. It was almost word for word what I said here. Apparently I missed my calling. :whis:

[MadZealot]

They did note that this individual has attempted suicide, as well as twice attempting to castrate themselves. That was enough to convince me. Some trans people are okay on a more grey-area of the gender/sex spectrum. Some people aren't.

Missed that bit of info.... in that light I'd definitely say this qualifies as a case of need.  
How far might the surgery go towards helping this person heal?

[Amethyst]

MA Judge Approves First-Ever Sex Reassignment Surgery for Transgendered Inmate

 
As you all have said, there is a difference between legal and moral reasons for this. I'm going to give my personal problem with this: I don't like that my tax dollars are paying for a murderer to have a better life. I have no problem with her getting the surgery, but she should have to pay for it, or her insurance should. I know "cruel and unusual punishment" and everything, but to be blunt she's not supposed to be happy. I especially feel that in the light of situations of other transgendered people I know, who have to pay in full for their surgery because not even their insurance will help them out, saying it's "unnecessary". Most of them have chosen not to get the surgery because of that, and some are very unhappy about it. I'd say those friends of mine are suffering "cruel and unusual punishment" in their daily lives, yet a judge would never rule for tax money to pay for their surgeries. Perhaps this is just a problem with the application of "cruel and unusual punishment" or perhaps the law needs to be clarified in terms of suggested treatment and who pays for it.

I did not know about the situation of attempted suicide and castration. Makes me feel a little better about my money paying, but still not totally pleased with it.

[Holdasown]

As you all have said, there is a difference between legal and moral reasons for this. I'm going to give my personal problem with this: I don't like that my tax dollars are paying for a murderer to have a better life. I have no problem with her getting the surgery, but she should have to pay for it, or her insurance should. I know "cruel and unusual punishment" and everything, but to be blunt she's not supposed to be happy. I especially feel that in the light of situations of other transgendered people I know, who have to pay in full for their surgery because not even their insurance will help them out, saying it's "unnecessary". Most of them have chosen not to get the surgery because of that, and some are very unhappy about it. I'd say those friends of mine are suffering "cruel and unusual punishment" in their daily lives, yet a judge would never rule for tax money to pay for their surgeries. Perhaps this is just a problem with the application of "cruel and unusual punishment" or perhaps the law needs to be clarified in terms of suggested treatment and who pays for it.

I did not know about the situation of attempted suicide and castration. Makes me feel a little better about my money paying, but still not totally pleased with it.

I agree I don't think they should be happy but they should be treated properly if they are a harm to themselves. Men and women in the civilian world wait years to have the surgery until they have the money. I have no issue with the State doing hormones but the surgery is a so-so with me. Once the change is done I would imagine she then becomes a truly female inmate and should be reclassified accordingly. She is going to be moved to a female facility.

[MadZealot]

Makes me feel a little better about my money paying, but still not totally pleased with it.

 
I'm with ya... I just got home from the doc's office, with some shiny new meds, and my wallet is definitely a bit lighter.  Thank G-d I'm insured, otherwise I'd have to kill someone to get treatment.  
Yes, I'm a cynical bastard.

[cigfran]

Makes me feel a little better about my money paying, but still not totally pleased with it.

 
Open letter to Elizabeth Warren on a prisoner’s right to medical transition

Assuming you do believe prisoners deserve health care, the only reason I can see you thinking it OK for a politician to insert yourself into someone’s process of making medical decisions with her doctors is because you don’t accept this is actually necessary medical care. I frankly don’t understand how a pro-choice politician can think voicing this sort of opinion is OK ever...

...we’ve got this bizarre attitude that trans women’s bodies are public property, that we don’t deserve bodily autonomy because of our genders, so everybody gets to say wether [sic] we even deserve health care.