Fed Judge Rules That Murder Convict Should Get SRS

[Carolyn Marie]

Interesting case.

http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2019064394_apusinmatesexchange.html

Carolyn Marie

[Sally]

It seems that the Judge understands the necessity for the surgery, it is just a shame that he is not allowed to rule over insurance companies and businesses.

It is so odd that on so many levels where prison sentences are designed to remove rights from convicts it somehow has a way of granting more rights than the civilian population in other areas.

I am sure that this will bring the outrage of all of the people who already believe that we are abominations.

Hard decisions are the reason that I am glad that I am not a judge.

Love ya,

Sally

[JJ]

The important part here though is not what the person did or who she is but that SRS is the same kind of medical treatment as any other. And that the law sees it that way. It is a huge victory for us. Would we feel this same ambiguity if the judge had ordered any other kind of necessary r treatment? Yet according to statistics we have a very high mortality risk -though from the effects of depression and stress-when we don't transition,. The AMA itself says it is a medical necessity.

There will be people screaming about it I'm sure-but it cuts off the argument that this is a choice off at the legs. It sends a message. in a way that will ripple out. At first people will be protesting why allow something like this-and others will answer them with the reasons,. The medical and scientific reasons that are now considered proof and not theory from the latest reading I did on Science Direct. That won't convince the haters but it will convince others. It will spread.

Johnny

[Bulldog1948]

A very important legal victory in trans people who are in prison. You might be suprised how many there are and the horrific conditions that they are forced to endure. If dogs and cats were treated like some of these inmates, people would scream bloody murder.

Fact: quite a few of these inmates have sold drugs to try and pay for the SRS. Also, some in for murder ended up killing someone because they were being threatened and or abused.

Mike

[Guest Pammy]

JJ, you make some very good points.

I agree with you totally, except that I really wish that this had happened to someone other than a life prisoner. And as I understand the situation, she killed her abusive husband. I really pray that the ripples from this decision carry over to the insurance companies. Because I can alrady feel a lot of anger and resentment in the T community that a prisoner gets something that THEY cannot.

Love

Pam

[Carolyn Marie]

This is being carried by the national media now, and I don't think its a good thing. CNN Headline News reported that SRS can cost upwards of $80,000. They don't cite the source of that figure, but it sure didn't come from anyone reputable. I;ve never heard of such a price tag, unless the surgery included FFS and BA.

Blow back is not a pretty thing.

Carolyn Marie

[Guest]

When the news media sensationalizes or marginalizes facts to make a story hot and controversial, is there any way to effectively tell the truth to the public locally or nationally?

[Guest DanD]

And as I understand the situation, she killed her abusive husband.

hate to be nitpicky but when the prisoner mentioned was a male, they killed their wife in a brutal way.. thats how they got into prison for life.

but yeh i agree with the other sentiments mentioned. its twisted and unfair for anyone to claim this isnt medically necesary.

[Guest DanD]

When the news media sensationalizes or marginalizes facts to make a story hot and controversial, is there any way to effectively tell the truth to the public locally or nationally?

well you can dispute it online in forums and blogs for example. you can write or email to the shows, the producers or the news people, sometimes they even post these things. if theyre slightly professional about it they should at least appreicate feedback and consider what you say, as it migth be educational for them.

and $80,000 is an out of their hat figure. they used to write these articles when i was younger, and i thought you had to have all kind of money to pay for it all at once..

if they were reputable newsreporters they would have looked online for some real prices, or called a few places for real prices, and they didnt. i think what theyd be concerned with, is how much this MTF person is going to be getting paid towards their surgery is the thing.

They will probbaly have it done at a medical school hospital done by a student or doctor there, that used to be the way to get it done cheaper. because they have to teach them at school how to do this you know?

Veyr likely they will NOT allow this person out of country so thailand or canada etc wont be possible, but probably someone close who doesnt charge a whole lot.

They dodnt vene mention if they had an orchie yet, but im going to make a stab at it and assume they did not do her orchie yet. that means a slightly higher price at srs time. they could do hers for anywhere between $10,000 and 30,000. Im going to guess they will set the price around 20, as i dont know anyone off hand who does it for 10k.

i think dr leis does it for 20k?

i dont know, but his prices are actually online, which is incredibly forthright of him to post that, IMO.

[Guest carolynn2fem]

I know i'm alone on this so I will only say that it is example of a waste of tax dollars. prisoners should have less rights than citizens

[Guest Pammy]

DanD, thank you for the correction. I must have had a blonde moment and got the spouse's gender wrong.

There goes my mistake for the year!

Love

Pamela

[Ravin]

Carolynn, the thing that matters is not the individual in this case. It's the legal precedent. Assuming it isn't overturned by a higher court, there is now persuasive caselaw to point to in other situations having nothing to do with prisoners where one is trying to get SRS covered as medically necessary.

[~Nova~]

I know i'm alone on this so I will only say that it is example of a waste of tax dollars. prisoners should have less rights than citizens

I agree on both accounts, but probably for different reasons.

She should not be given SRS. I know the ruling is a step in the right direction by making it a medical procedure, but it's not. The only thing medical about it is the actually procedure. The rest is purely a mental issue. Men have had penises for eternity and not one has died because of it. (Barring cancer or some other true medical issue.). Granted, she is suicidal, but so is half the population of transgender individuals. We all know the stats.

As much as I would love to say SRS is a medically necessary surgery, I wont lie to you or myself. The preload can be found right oj this board. How many of you are dying because you have a penis? (suicide excluded, she can be treated for suicide with SSRI's or other drugs). Does this also mean that FTM's should have breast reduction? I believe that breasts are more mentally disturbing to a TG because they are so hard to hide.

As to they shouldn't have the same rights. They gave up those rights when they made the choice to break the law.

[Carolyn Marie]

This is a very difficult issue for me, and I am torn between two feelings. I'm sure most of you know my background, and for that reason I have no sympathy for murderers or other violent criminals. I'm not going to debate the merits of our justice system. I find it hard to swallow, spending large sums on prisoner medical care, this case notwithstanding.

On the other hand, we are supposed to be a civilized society, and unlike the middle ages when prisoners were allowed to rot in dank cells, and basically forgotten, we are supposed to provide humane treatment for those we incarcerate. So medical treatment, including heart transplants and every other conceivable type of medical procedure, is afforded to prisoners. We simply cannot, and in most cases do not, allow prisoners to die of lack of treatment.

Nova, I must disagree with your position, for two reasons. The term medically necessary does not necessarily mean life saving. Medically necessary can include oral surgery, fixing a broken bone or dislocated shoulder, or providing plastic surgery to someone who has been burned. If it were determined that GRS is not medically necessary, no insurance company in the world would cover it, and every one of us would have to pay the entire cost out of pocket, forevermore. The IRS would not reimburse for it, nor would Medicare cover it.

The other reason is that the APA and the AMA, as well as WPATH, all agree that GRS is medically necessary, and if we as a Community dispute that ourselves, we risk losing credibility.

It is a very difficult issue, but in the end, I reluctantly have to agree with the court, that this prisoner should receive the GRS.

HUGS

Carolyn Marie

[~Nova~]

Ok, let's say it's not a life impending surgery. Does the penis do ANYTHING medical? Eliminating the mental aspects, does her penis do anything to her, in a soley medical viewpoint, that would prevent her from living? Let's remember that where she is, everyone has a penis and they are all "medically" ok.

I'm not saying she should not get the surgery, she should. She should get it when she is out of jail and can pay for it. Insurance companies do not cover it based on "medically necessity", they cover it under health and welfare. Having a penis is not life threatening. Having a penis does not in anyway hinder a person from living a normal healthy life. Mentally, that is a different story.

If they find it medically necessary to remove her penis, all rhe men in the jail should have the same surgery. It's not a toothache, it's not a burn, or a shoulder, a heart problem. It is in fact, not a problem at all.

She should receive mental health and drugs to resolve any other underlying mental issues, but removal of a penis has no "medical" purpose. None!

I had one. I would have had no trouble in life if it were still there. I no longer have one and my life expectancy has not changed, nor has it made any medical difference. Mentally, HUGE difference.

Sorry C. This issue is one we should sit down and have a few glasses of wine over.

[JenniferB]

I have a big problem paying for surgery for a convicted murderer, and I wish this wasn't the case being used as precedent. When most transsexuals have to fully pay for their own surgery, why is this person being covered? I don't mind that some prisoners are covered for GRS, but a convicted murderer?

Jenny

[Carolyn Marie]

Sorry C. This issue is one we should sit down and have a few glasses of wine over.

Nova, if you substitute margaritas for the wine, you've got a date!

HUGS

Carolyn Marie

[JJ]

We really don't know anything about her to judge her worthy or otherwise. I know that being trans in some places may have resulted in prison for her where someone else would walk. What if this is a trans related crime and really self defense? I am sure it has happened/ On a personal level I'd be more unhappy to see treatment for a convicted drug dealer than a murderer because often there is a motive for murder besides money and only one victim. Drug dealers kill hundreds - just more slowly-and do it for money.

But essentially I don't think we really want to set up a precedent that someone has to be worthy before their SRS is covered. Some will say no one on any assistance should quality and others no one with a sex trade conviction or no one with a medical conviction or anyone over 40. On and on. What is important here is the precedent and not what crime was committed or how worthy the candidate may or may not be. No one should have to suffer hopelessly anyway-which is what denial would be. A form of torture in it's own way as many of us know all too well. This is still a human being.

Johnny.

[~Nova~]

C, I make a great margarita. Do you want salt on your glass or no?

Johnny, we do know enough about her to come to a conclusion. She was found guilty in a out of law of KILLING someone. No matter how nice a person, that puts them at the bottom of the barrel, period. Her sentence of life tells me the judge dot her crime heinous enough that she should spend the rst of her life behind bars. I'm gonna put on my judgy pants here and say she is scum.

The precedent is simple, no one gets it. Not under 40, not on hormones for ten years, not the pretty one or the ugly one, not the one that found god and not the one (insert whatever you like).

We have become a society that has lost reality. The truth is in my head I'm a girl. Great. I dress like a girl, I take female hormones. I have had SRS. None of that changes that genetically, I'm a boy. My lab results would be in the norms for boys. I still have a prostate. I don't have a uterus. My hips will always be tilted in boy fashion. We have got to separate mental for medical. Their was no medical reason for m to have SRS, their was a mental reason.

Ok, how do you like your burgers? Rare, medium, well? Ive got dogs on too and Lucy has chicken coming. Any if you bots care to take over the grilling? It can be a girl, I just don't wanna do it. I wanna share a drink with C.

[Guest KimberlyF]

Rapid fire views

Taxpayers shouldn't foot the bill.

Heard she was loaded. Could be BS. If not, take it from her own money. Problem solved.

She'll spend the rest of her jail time in a cage by herself. Men's jail-easy rape target. Women's-bring on the wife murderer.

Mental health is medical health. Fear and stress and happiness, etc cause all kinds of actual physical symptoms. Many get anxiety meds from their PCP.

[JJ]

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't have the faith in the judicial system you do. Knew too many judges and seen the stats for who goes to jail and who walks-even for murder and money is factor number one. Race is factor number two. Innocent people go to jail all the time. Railroaded by prejudiced police and judges who know they don't have the resources to appeal. But even if she is a cold blooded killer and guilty as sin I'd still support not forcing her to live her life with GD. Again we will just have to agree to disagree.

Same on the gender thing. Part of my body is male-my brain. Few know what their genetic status actually is because of the prohibitive cost. We have had quite a few here who did find genetic mixes when tested. And the T I take has certainly changed my body in ways that make quite different from a regular female. The AMA and the scientists doing the current research say this is medical. Physical in origin. It's the definitions that need changed rather than how we see ourselves. To be honest I have a male pelvis according to the Dr who delivered my daughter. And male skeletal structure by all the measurements. Not on the cusp but solidly in male range. I have a scar that even my Dr agrees is most likely from genital revision but I have a uterus too. So what am I? I am a man. Because I have a male brain structure. Which showed in psychological and aptitude tests even 45 years ago. I had an written report from a psychologist saying I had a male brain in a female body. Amazingly ahead of his time-and I never disclosed to him either.

But again I suppose we have to agree to disagree. I don't think enough is known about most of us to say what we are genetically. Not yet anyway.

Wow a rare burger sound great! Still want to lose 5 more lbs but I don't think a burger here would do any harm would it?

Different opinions keep the world interesting

Johnny

[Ravin]

Another issue I see cropping up here (which has nothing to do with the value of the ruling as a legal boon to Americans who need SRS) is a false dichotomy between physical illness and mental illness. Mental illness cannot be divorced from the body, because the brain is part of the body and imbalances in the brain which are highly treatable are a big component of "mental" illness.

I think the drive some trans folks have to see GID removed from the DSM stems from this notion that mental illness is of itself a different thing from all other kinds of illness--something to which our culture wrongfully attaches notions of shame and blame, just as they once did for cancer, epilepsy, and leprosy and still sometimes do for HIV.

Take away the dichotomy and see the mind/body as one unit. "GID" can then be reframed as a physical disorder of the brain, endocrine system, and reproductive organs, which tends to cause mental, social, and emotional strain of varying severity for the individual, which may be alleviated through corrective medical intervention and therapy.

Likewise, other things in the DSM have known physical causes (Trisomy 21, for example), but have significant impact on the working of the mind because of how they alter the brain.

My hope is that someday people will stop stigmatizing illnesses that involve the workings of the mind because of effects on the brain.

[~Nova~]

Johnny, having intersex traits, although not uncommon in trans certainly does not represent the majority. Also, that being said, the things you mentioned, all physical traits, all can be manipulated with surgery and therefore, medical.

Another issue I see cropping up here (which has nothing to do with the value of the ruling as a legal boon to Americans who need SRS) is a false dichotomy between physical illness and mental illness. Mental illness cannot be divorced from the body, because the brain is part of the body and imbalances in the brain which are highly treatable are a big component of "mental" illness.

Their is a huge difference between mental illness and physical illness. Can mental illness manifest itself as a physical trait, sure, but in general you do not treat the symptom, you treat the illness, which is mental. And as you stated, is highly treatable

I think the drive some trans folks have to see GID removed from the DSM stems from this notion that mental illness is of itself a different thing from all other kinds of illness--something to which our culture wrongfully attaches notions of shame and blame, just as they once did for cancer, epilepsy, and leprosy and still sometimes do for HIV.

Cancer, epilepsy and all the rest, physical ailments. None are caused by mental anguish.

Take away the dichotomy and see the mind/body as one unit. "GID" can then be reframed as a physical disorder of the brain, endocrine system, and reproductive organs, which tends to cause mental, social, and emotional strain of varying severity for the individual, which may be alleviated through corrective medical intervention and therapy.

Or, can be relieved with corrective or helpful mental treatment. The mind and body are not one. They may be connected within the same frame, but they are clearly not the same. Even the legal system recognizes that, by having a reason of insanity plea.

Likewise, other things in the DSM have known physical causes (Trisomy 21, for example), but have significant impact on the working of the mind because of how they alter the brain.

Trisomy 21 is downs syndrome. What that has to do with this I will never understand

My hope is that someday people will stop stigmatizing illnesses that involve the workings of the mind because of effects on the brain.

I really believe that people believe the "cure" for transgenderism SRS/GRS. I can tell you that it is not. Does it help relieve some dysphoria, of course. What it will not do is make me woman. IRL, I have known equal girls that have elected for FFS over GRS. Does that fix their dysphoria? No, it makes them feel they fit in better. Neither is right, and neither will correct a mental imbalance. Even in out own surgical forums their are girls that are opting for FFS over GRS.

these are cosmetic changes that are elective and bear no relationship to medical procedures. It's unfortunate that people feel that surgery will cure a mental issue. It can help, but it is not the cure. After this girl gets her GRS, do we then send her for BA and FFS? How On earth can she live without breasts or a pretty face?

[~Nova~]

I would like to add one more point. I have worked in cardiology or 20 years, and everyday we get patients that complain of chest pain. Some of those patients we treat with medicine, some we send to the hospital and mod we send to psych doctors. The symptom is real, they have chest pain, the cause is not cardiac, it's mental. We can cut them open, but their hearts are not broen, their heads are.

The same is happening here. We can give her GRS, but we are not helping her. She needs therapy. Surgery should only be one on those that are of right mind. By her saying she will die or have some other physical ailment because she does not have the surgery is proof that she is not ready for the surgery and does not fully understand it.

[Ravin]

Take a look at the broad categories of the DSM sometime. Most of what is in there does not by a long shot stem from "mental anguish." Emotional pain and mental symptoms stem from something being off in the brain. How it is thrown off is the "mental illness," and how it is treated may be pharmacological or through therapy, just as if there's something causing you pain in your arm a drug regimen or physical therapy may be appropriate treatment.

What's in your head isn't JUST in your head. The brain is flesh.

As for the law...legal definitions and logic often have nothing whatsoever to do with scientific understanding of mind-body connections. Legal thinking on the subject is still downright medieval.