Fed Judge Rules That Murder Convict Should Get SRS

[Guest carolynn2fem]

the topic is conflicting on many levels as others have pointed out. I'm leaving it alone

[Guest DanD]

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

no i totally understand your feeling on this too, but if its in the law book that they have to have anything that medically necesary then, that was the whol point of the way the article was written...its medically necesaary, so..if it is, then it has to covered.

I don't know.. im sort of on the fence about it myself, on one hand, theyre prisoner, and people on the outside cant even get it so good sometimes.. on the other hand..if youre going to deny medical things for prisoners, who decides what that is? some would say treatment for anything that costs any money isnt worthwhile to the tax payers. alot of things cost alot of money.

Being stuck inside the skin youre in when its not you is probably a more cruel and unusual punishment than anyone could fathom too. even if i werent in prison it hardly seems so much different at times.

[Guest DanD]

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!

only one a year? thats not so bad! I get them all the time, even though my hair isnt as blonde as it used to be..

[Guest DanD]

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

and I say AMEN! Amen to that.

and "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."

That is so right! thats why i tell people basicly the same thing.

I think, in truth, some transsexuals it is absolutely necessary, and others..apparently not so much... which honesty, makes me wonder if theyre really transsexuals or not in the first place, if they cant fathom it.

some people have depression too, but its not debilitating, but to someone else it can be VERY debilitating. I get sick of having to explain that people who suffer from MAJOR DEPRESSION arent just whiney fools, who need to just "pick themselves up by their bootstraps," -thats one of those phrases i despise, it proves the point, that some people cant even IMAGINE what its like.

[Guest DanD]

BY LAW anything they need should be covered, so it makes no sense to deny this or any other legitimate medical treatment from a prisoner, from a legal standpoint. and as such would be consider unethical gross negligence of a person's medical needs.

[Guest DanD]

I understand your statement from an emotional aspect, for those reasons especially. For example, i cant afford to get my teeth fixed right now, so have to wait til i can for that, but if i were in prison, it would be done probably sooner. They get cable TV too, and I have to pay for it. well i have to pay for everything out here though. even water and stuff.

well, we dont deny them water, we dont deny them cable because they probably cant get anything in regular tv in those places anyway. they dont get the fancy channels, just basics. Should go back to feeding them dirty water and boiled up ground up watered down, surprise stew with worms and everything else?

These laws were brought up for reasons. and if it were your son or daughter in prison for a few years, or longer.. you wish they would not harm them, and would feed them properly and treat them humanely.

Sometimes innocents go to jail, too.

I hate the whole idea of prisons and things.. avoid going to jail as much as you can in life. thats the best advice you can give, stay out of troubles. learn about things, and dont be a fool. all those kinds of things. but sometimes strange things happen.

From a legal point.. if the laws say they have to provide medical care, then it would depend on those particular laws about what and where and how and all those other things. and those details might differ from place to place, like alot of other things do.

[Guest DanD]

some people get convicted of things they never did. I havent researched her case enough to have an option to know what kind of human being they were before or are now. and deciding worthiness? im with JJ on that, it would be troubling if they start to decide who is worthy and not worthy of, various things. thats one of the new healthcare things i dont like... but its another topic for another day.

[Guest MsGsptlsnz]

The question that needs to be answered is the surgery a medical neccessity, does leaving this person their birth gender cause them sufficent medicaly measureable problems to warrent the need for the surgery? I know if for some reason I was sent up the river for a crime I may or may not have committed the state would be on the hook for my dialysis and potential kidney transplant. I'd want them to pony up for that because it is medicaly neccessary. Without it I would die.

Now this person who is in prison for a crime they may or may not have committed (false conviction rates are pretty scarry, expecialy for capital crimes so I'm not going to assume he is 100% guilty) has been diagnosed as needing to have their gender changed. I think we all know the kind of troubles trying to live as someone you are not can cause. Perhaps if this person had gotten the surgery earlier on the problems that led to the conviction would never have happened. Perhaps by getting this surgery the person can become a productive member of society again. Isn't justice all about trying to get people to be better citizens?

As for the money side of things, maybe once the surgery is done the person will be more calm and reasoned. They could get an early parole and be out earning money and paying taxes. The surgery could actualy wind up being the least expensive option.