By that logic, during budget crunches, administration could also take their hacking saws to the budgets for antibiotics, exams, surgeries, hell, even food and water.
Gender dysphoria is a medical diagnosis with a variety of treatments that can include HRT and/or gender reassignment surgery. Either we provide healthcare to inmates or we don't.
You said it yourself. There are a variety of treatments, some that don't include surgery.
What I intended to say is that the physicians treating patients should be able to choose the treatment that will best benefit the patient. It should not be appropriate for anyone else to make that decision.
No, I wouldn't prioritize it. Realistically, transgender people make up maybe 5% of the population and an even smaller percentage of the prison population. To me it doesn't seem to be a widespread issue, I'm sure it could be better served on a case by case basis.
What if someone sees going to prison as advantageous?
I am undecided. I want to hear arguments either way. It seems like a health issue to me and so it seems like yes. But financially it's a big no. Also, it seems cosmetic, so that leans me towards no because someone could have a critical identity issue with some other part of their body and want to alter it while serving a sentence, but would that be allowed? I mean, is it like, "He got a penis; I want a new nose. My nose has always bothered me and psychologically it's very negatively affecting my mental state and sense of identity."
Prisons are supposedly supposed to maintain and also rehabilitate those who will re-enter society as serving their sentences, but what exactly should that mean?
I disagree with this part. I can totally understand where you are coming from about the financial concerns and whether people would see incarceration as advantageous. However, I am sure there are many people out there who will tell you that it is not at all cosmetic. I think that may be unintentionally trivializing what they are going through.
I'm not trying to trivialize anything. I see transgender as a global issue that is larger than a nose job. I think legally though it might not be that like that. And a physical alteration of one kind may lead to the request (?) for other lesser items.
I'm leaning towards no, but not 100% decided. I feel like that if it's not covered by insurance or medicaid for the average citizen, then why should it would be covered for a prisoner?
1. Assuming this is something the inmate has struggled with his / her entire life, than s/he she should be able to wait the couple years until s/he is released to pursue HRT / surgery, whatever. Perhaps counseling should be available during the period of incarceration to deal with whatever.
2. If the person doesn't have a realistic chance of being released b/c he committed a violent crime (murderer, rape, child molestation), than I just cannot give a fuck that s/he is bummed about having a penis.
3. If the person is incarcerated for a lengthy sentence due to some non-violent crime (3 strikes, etc.), than the answer is to re-visit the sensibility of these laws / length of sentences (vs. figuring out ways to make unjust sentences more "palatable" to the inmate). In which case, see no. 1.
I'm not trying to trivialize anything. I see transgender as a global issue that is larger than a nose job. I think legally though it might not be that like that. And a physical alteration of one kind may lead to the request (?) for other lesser items.
Gotcha. Do you think legally it should be like that? This is an interesting line of conversation.
If most health insurance companies decided to add coverage for these surgeries as part of the basic plans, should prisoners then have access to them, too?
I would have to know more about how care is managed for prisoners. What coverage is and what the parallels are between prisoner care and average citizen care. (This was originally better written, but got zapped somehow.)
ETA: Hence why I haven't formed an opinion either way, yet. I need more information and need to examine the issue from different points of view.
And in the case of reassignment of gender, the surgery itself is what stipulates which prison an inmate inhabits -- so if a MTF is housed in a male prison, she still is subject to being thought of as a male, not female. I think this could have pretty harmful effects on the psyche.
My gut reaction is no, as I stated above, but when I started thinking about it more, this issue came to mind. And I find this argument for the prison system paying for the surgeries fairly compelling. Of course, being housed with the opposite population is still a problem for those who choose not to undergo surgery but are choosing other reassignment treatments, and I assume is just as harmful on their psyche.
Gotcha. Do you think legally it should be like that? This is an interesting line of conversation.
If most health insurance companies decided to add coverage for these surgeries as part of the basic plans, should prisoners then have access to them, too?
I would have to know more about how care is managed for prisoners. What coverage is and what the parallels are between prisoner care and average citizen care. (This was originally better written, but got zapped somehow.)
The answer is that care is managed for absolute shit. Dental care is almost impossible. It takes a ridiculous amount of time to receive care for non-emergent isues. It's tough to be seen by an actual doctor. Many of the prisons in my state, for ex., contract for 1 - ONE - doc to come to the prison once every 6 mos. If you Any other visit would be w/ a nurse or a P.A.
I think a lot of people are laboring under the impression that our prisons are full of rapists and murderers instead of low-level petty crime and drug offenders.
I would have to know more about how care is managed for prisoners. What coverage is and what the parallels are between prisoner care and average citizen care. (This was originally better written, but got zapped somehow.)
The answer is that care is managed for absolute shit. Dental care is almost impossible. It takes a ridiculous amount of time to receive care for non-emergent isues. It's tough to be seen by an actual doctor. Many of the prisons in my state, for ex., contract for 1 - ONE - doc to come to the prison once every 6 mos. If you Any other visit would be w/ a nurse or a P.A.
If care is that poor then the focus on improvement needs to be a bottom-up (?) approach starting with those health issues that are the most critical and working up.
Of course then you get into the question of which medical issues those would be; what is defined as critical/highest priority.
Honestly I'm back and forth on this and would like to make a list of caveats but what sways me over to 'yes, of course they should' is the gray area that would come with saying 'no' or 'only in this circumstance' and I don't want to see that happen so I'm going to go with yes. There are a lot of things prisoners get that people outside of prison don't get or have to work hard and save for, that doesn't make prison life better than life on the outside by a long shot. If you think it is, then get yourself arrested.
I agree with LLL, this is a low low percentage of inmates so case by case in dealing with this issue. I think prison rape is a much more widespread issue that needs to be addressed.
I think a lot of people are laboring under the impression that our prisons are full of rapists and murderers instead of low-level petty crime and drug offenders.
Doesn't this point cut both ways, though? On the one hand, it is cruel to subject a person who was likely in the wrong place / wrong time, not really "bad," a product of circumstances, what-have you, to serve time among people who are not of his / her gender. That is fucking awful. And I agree that the alternative (essentially solitary confinement) is not an acceptable solution.
BUT when we're talking about low-level criminals, we're also talking about relatively short sentences. The extent to which the system would have to be completely overhauled to actually ensure that gender re-assignments occur seems over-the-top when we're talking about a person who will likely be released in 3 years anyway.
I do agree with your earlier point, though - that if a doc indicates that the procedure is medically necessary on a case-by-case basis, than so be it. But I don't think the system should be revamped so as to make that surgery a priority. There are, imo, bigger fish that needs fryin'.
I think a lot of people are laboring under the impression that our prisons are full of rapists and murderers instead of low-level petty crime and drug offenders.
Yes, and also the misconception that it's Club Med. I'm pretty sure that prisoners are provided with the basic necessities of life and not much more. I'm sure some prisons are better than others, but in general I feel like people are overestimating how comfortable they are, and what kind of resources prisoners have access too.
If you're lumping me in that group, don't. People will go to great lengths to get what they want/need.
Remember that people used coat hangers when there wasn't access to proper medical care to have abortions.
People can be very desperate. Serving a short sentence for a non-violent crime might seem like an option for someone with no opportunity to alter the one thing in their life that is making them truly miserable.
I have all the books I could need, and what more could I need than books? I shall only engage in commerce if books are the coin. -- Catherynne M. Valente
What I intended to say is that the physicians treating patients should be able to choose the treatment that will best benefit the patient. It should not be appropriate for anyone else to make that decision.
I do 100% agree with this. As a few other people have said, it really needs to be on a case-by-case basis. I have limited knowledge on the process that leads up to gender reassignment surgery, but I believe it takes years of therapy and hormone treatment before a psychologist/doctor will recommend this path. If an inmate is at that point, I do think it would be cruel to deny this course of treatment.
Sadly, because of people like sunshineluv, she's right. Like, the constitutional right to vote.
Good to know I have that kind of power. But I do think that convicted felons should lose rights, I don't think they should or do lose ALL their rights, and I am more of the mindset you do your time, you get a clean slate. (Unless you commit a crime again, then your prior record should come into account)
But crimes come with punishment, as they should, so they are a deterant for people to commit crimes. I do not in any way think prison is club med, but if an inmate is not provided access to an elective surgery, so be it. Serve your time, then get your surgery on your own dime. Just like I have to if I want an elective surgery.
I have all the books I could need, and what more could I need than books? I shall only engage in commerce if books are the coin. -- Catherynne M. Valente
Man, I wanna go to prison! All I have to do all day is watch TV, benchpress some weights, get fed, do some menial labor, get free healthcare (when the doc comes around). Sounds sweet.
I would guess that assignment is based on sex rather than gender for the following reasons: 1. State/Federal laws: even the "progressive" states aren't *that* progressive, so getting the laws changed to account for transgendered individuals would be a challenge. 2. What would happen if a male prisoner lied about being transgendered just to get into a female prison, and rape/sexual assault occurred? My guess is that the state would face a huge lawsuit.