It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Federal judge orders Massachusetts to pay for killer's sex change

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger

not junk science
nazi science

the 1st succesful sex change was performed by none other than dr "death" mengele
after sacrificing hundreds of fraternal [boy girl] twins he finally managed to exchange their sexes


Wrong. The earliest identified recipient of such a procedure was around 1921. Other procedures had been attempted and completed to varying degrees prior to this historically. Josef Mengele was likely around 10 years old in 1921.


Originally posted by trysts
Perhaps he was getting a hormonal treatment necessary for a sex change operation, and now it's dangerous for him not to have the operation after the treatment?


Doesn't quite work that way. The risk of suicide and depression is massive. The risk of treatment is considerbly less. As stated in the judge's write up, some patients can get by with counselling ... others not so much. They don't really want an inmate swinging from a cieling fixture.

I'd highly recommend everyone read the write up of the judge's decision. The prison was certainly violating the eighth ammendment and acting outside their duty of care. The following jumps out:

* The prison fired a first specialist after the specialist claimed the surgery was neccessary
* The prison delibrately hired a Canadian doctor who believed that hormones should not be distributed within a prison, and froze all trans treatments at this stage
* The prison cited 'security' concerns regarding treatment, even going so far as claiming the prisoner would flee
* It was generally concluded the treatment was being denied in fear of controversy
* A new prison commisioner said they would retire rather than provide the treatment
* Another specialist made the same recommendation and was fired with involvement from that commissioner
* The commisioner then (taking a step outside the norm) hired a social worker from a department known to be run by a religious doctor who was well known as having a moral opposition to such surgery ...
* The DOC's trial expert's recent work focused on medical bill procedures. The patient's experts were gender experts.


I'm not going to continue. That's barely up to page 20. The simple fact of the matter is the prison was acting out and the case they presented was painful. For those of you that have a huge problem with reassignment being neccessary the workflow is something like:

Medical establishment view ----> Specialist ----> Care Giver ----> Prison ----> Court

Your problem is at step one. The medical establishment. I think you should be complaining at them. The next step is the issue that sexual reassignment has been proven as the only way in some circumstances to relieve suffering, lower depression and suicide rates, and assist the person.

If you're objecting to this you must have some kind of alternative solution. If your alternative is 'drink a cup of concrete and harden up darling' or 'a bullet' then be prepared for a back hand of titanic proportions.

If you have an alternative based on years of research and study, is non-invasive, and produces results then please the medical establishment wants to hear from you.

The fact that the inmate (I have no idea about the other inmates involved) was a killer is completely and utterly besides the point. In fact, I think the prison was relying on that playing a factor in the judge's decision. It didn't and nor should it have.

The prison commissioner admitted having no medical expertise in this area, it wasn't up to the prison to decide if it was neccessary or not even though they were trying. The prison did not convincingly argue that the treatment was not required, not useful or optional ... they attempted to argue security concerns and fear of ridicule ... niether of which is a good reason under the circumstances to deny treatment.

If you have a problem with this it lays firmly with the prison's choice of defense and current medicine, not with the judge IMO.
edit on 4-9-2012 by Pinke because: italics




posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 


well to the best of my knowledge then
would be nice if you provided a link or a search term though

edit NVM


The earliest identified recipient of male to female sex reassignment surgery was 'Rudolf (Dora-R).[13] "He took the first step towards changing his sex in 1921, when he had himself castrated, As a result his sexual instinct was enfeebled, but the homosexual tendency, as well as his own feelings, remained the same. This step, however, was not sufficient for him, and he tried to obtain a still greater degree of femininity in his sexual parts. Finally, in 1930, the operation which he himself had attempted at the age of six was performed upon him, that is, the removal of his penis, and six months afterwards the transformation was completed by the grafting of an artificial vagina."

This was followed by Lili Elbe in Berlin during 1930-1931. She started with the removal of the male sex organs, the operation supervised by Dr. Magnus Hirschfeld. Lili went on to have four more subsequent operations that included an unsuccessful uterine transplant, the rejection of which resulted in death. An earlier known recipient of this was Magnus Hirschfeld's housekeeper,[14] but her identity is unclear at this time.

Filmmaker Tanaz Eshaghian discovered that the Iranian government's "solution" for homosexuality is to endorse, and fully pay for, sex reassignment surgery.[15] The leader of Iran's Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, issued a fatwa declaring sex reassignment surgery permissible for "diagnosed transsexuals."[15] Eshaghian's documentary, Be Like Others, chronicles a number of stories of Iranian gay men who feel transitioning is the only way to avoid further persecution, jail and/or execution.[15] The head of Iran's main transsexual organization, Maryam Khatoon Molkara—who convinced Khomeini to issue the fatwa on transsexuality—confirmed that some people who undergo operations are gay rather than transsexual.[16]

Thailand is the country that performs the most sex reassignment surgeries, followed by Iran.[16]

On June 12 2003, European Court of Human Rights judged human rights violation for Van Kück, a German transsexual woman to be refused the pay for gender reassignment surgery as well as hormone replacement therapy relating the Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights as well as the Article 8. This affair is called "Van Kück vs Germany"[17]
en.wikipedia.org...

funny how mengeles experiments on twins arent referenced
googling mengele sex change brings up loads of links
in my defense i was going by what i read in a book 33 years ago
but thanks for the clarification heads up


OT: you're not really the singer are you?

edit on 4-9-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: added edit and comment

edit on 4-9-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 06:02 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


I wonder how many law abiding citizens out there currently need a medical operation that they cannot afford..



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 


I'd highly recommend everyone read the write up of the judge's decision. The prison was certainly violating the eighth ammendment and acting outside their duty of care. The following jumps out:

* The prison fired a first specialist after the specialist claimed the surgery was neccessary
* The prison delibrately hired a Canadian doctor who believed that hormones should not be distributed within a prison, and froze all trans treatments at this stage
* The prison cited 'security' concerns regarding treatment, even going so far as claiming the prisoner would flee
* It was generally concluded the treatment was being denied in fear of controversy
* A new prison commisioner said they would retire rather than provide the treatment
* Another specialist made the same recommendation and was fired with involvement from that commissioner
* The commisioner then (taking a step outside the norm) hired a social worker from a department known to be run by a religious doctor who was well known as having a moral opposition to such surgery ...
* The DOC's trial expert's recent work focused on medical bill procedures. The patient's experts were gender experts.
...
If you have a problem with this it lays firmly with the prison's choice of defense and current medicine, not with the judge IMO. current medicine, not with the judge IMO.


Unfortunately, your opinion has nothing to do with the 8th amendment, nor did the prison's actions.

This is the entire text of the 8th amendment:

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

The prison's actions were not "punishments," but were failures to accomodate an inmate's disruptive, selfish and costly desire for the ultimate accomdoation -- to make him into something he was not when he was convicted.

The SCotUS has made the determination quite clear:


"There are, then, four principles by which we may determine whether a particular punishment is 'cruel and unusual'."

The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity," especially torture.
"A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion."
"A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society."
"A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary."

Furman v. Georgia, 408 US 238 (1972).

No punishment, no violation.

jw



edit on 5-9-2012 by jdub297 because: spaces



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   
does he still have the strength of a man while being in a female jail?

thinking that you are a woman trapped in a man's body is delusional

If I feel like I am possessed will the state fund an exorcism for me?



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Reply to post by jdub297
 


Wow, I don't think my health insurance would pay for that.

I guess it's great that the peoples taxes will pay for it :confused:


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by jdub297
 


I wonder how many law abiding citizens out there currently need a medical operation that they cannot afford..


They could always bet conicted of a minor offense in MA and then use this "precedent" as support for their hair transplant, or tummy-tuck. Even a suspended sentence renders you subject to the State's custody/supervision.

jw



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   
What if this is an elaborate plot to be placed into a women's prison? I mean if he had the sex change I doubt he would be placed with male prisoners.. not matter how unattractive. Plus, advocate groups would say he is now a she, and therefore belongs in a women's prison.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
Unfortunately, your opinion has nothing to do with the 8th amendment, nor did the prison's actions.


And oddly enough, neither does yours.

Inmates have a right to adequate medical care. The person required medical care as described by specialists who recommended it as the only adequate treatment for the person's condition. The prison took steps to avoid providing that care for various reasons none of which were valid. The judge followed the law and previous cases studied and presumed it as a violation the 8th amendment. (Refusal for required medical care)

If anyone has a problem it's with the medical establishment stating this treatment is needed and was the only adequate resolution. Your opinion of what the inmate is, should be, and was is also oddly enough meaningless without extensive qualifications in the area. Also if a person was a transsexual going into a prison it's not unreasonable to expect to be one on the way out.

The persons crimes are irrelevant. Most prisoners in your country have these rights.

Reply to DerepentLEstranger:

The actual dates are hard to pin point of first identified and what qualifies as reassignment. Generally it's agreed between 20s and 30s for identified person but other steps have been taken throughout history prior to medical establishment being what it is in the last 100 years. A lot of those procedures weren't documented exactly though.

Off topic query is off topic? O.o



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


well, i was referring to legitimate and necessary medical operations.

Also, hair transplants are not THAT expensive, haven't you seen the Bosley commercials?



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 10:39 AM
link   
I worked for the DOC for a while until I began my new career as a Trooper, and from first hand experience I know that inmates in the state get better health care then even the C/O who works for the DOC. They take complete advantage of the situation they are in. Most are convicted rapists, murderers, and child molesters, a lot are gang bangers. They know that if they feel ill or want something like laser eye surgery or even this sex change operation that the state will pay for it.

I for one think that it is complete BS because these people have committed horrible acts and should not be aloud the rights that they actually have and yes they have a lot more rights behind bars then you would believe.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by caf1550
They know that if they feel ill or want something like laser eye surgery or even this sex change operation that the state will pay for it.


I read references to this being a first in the judge's document but couldn't be bothered going through it all again to check. So I googled:


MA Prisoner Becomes First Inmate To Have Gender-Reassignment Surgery Paid For By State

Source

News sites are also reporting it as a first. This information doesn't seem to match rumors you may have heard during your experiences.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 

From 1st-hand experience in the criminal justice system, I know that inmates with self-inllicted "illnesses" and even less, are catered to by admin to avoid costly disputes; so, when the crack addict can't sleep, or can't eat certain foods because she has destroyed her kidneys/liver/digestive system, the "system" bends over backwards at taxpayer expense to avoid litigation and buy their peace until they can release the inmate to a different facility, or the street.

Is this what you want your "corrections" system to pay for?

jw



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 02:53 AM
link   
What you're saying here is different a bit from what you were saying above. IE ... Laser eye surgery seems to be on the list of things not to expect as a prisoner. I couldn't find a documented case of it being provided when I looked.

Your second post opinion seems to be prisoners shouldn't get health care if they've 'destroyed' internal organs. A 1976 supreme court ruling disagrees with this point of view, and it has generally been deemed that rehab is more likely with good health care.

Here is a recent article from the American Journal of Nursing stating some of the issues. It also states that prisoners generally get subpar health care but are more expensive to keep. Various sources state this is because they are 5x more likely to have Hep C for example, and much more likely to have mental conditions.

Here is an article from The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law discussing the sub standard working conditions and ethical issues physicians face in American prisons ... some of which includes dual loyalty to people like yourself and the prisoners.

There are piles of these sources that point to poor management, ethical issues, and expensive chronic conditions being major issues in the American prison system. Laser eye surgery or sex changes is absent from these documents. I'd also argue that if you've self inflicted hep-C then it's not really 'faking'. Hep-C seems to be one of the bigger money drains.

I don't disbelieve that there might be a 'chilling effect' in some prisons when litigation from a prisoner succeeds and prison staff don't understand the specific ruling. The prison staff then begin making incorrect decisions based on what they percieved that ruling to be. It's not uncommon for this to happen in other areas. I think that chilling effect happens both ways though ... i.e disputing specialist recommendations due to percieved public outcry is similar to the chilling effect of providing elective surgery due to misunderstanding a previous court ruling involving recommended surgery. It probably balances out.


Originally posted by jdub297
Is this what you want your "corrections" system to pay for?


Based on the sources above, I have no problem with this. It is a 'corrections' system not a 'punishment' system IMO. The research and studies I've seen seem to agree with the idea that punishment historically does not produce correction/rehab. If a drug addict has destroyed a portion of their internal organs I see no rehab value in releasing them back into society after denying them recommended neccessary medical care. It would just be releasing another problem onto the streets which is the opposite of the goal of the prison system in America I think?

Edit: Curiously though, can you say what area you worked in? I don't dispute your experiences. I've met prison workers with similarish feelings. I'd encourage you to write a thread based on any interesting thoughts/opinions you might have in any of these areas.
edit on 7-9-2012 by Pinke because: Edit: write a thread plz!



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 



Based on the sources above, I have no problem with this. It is a 'corrections' system not a 'punishment' system IMO.

All studies agree that incarceration serves one or more of the following functions:
Retribution, Isolation, Rehabilitation and Deterrence.

Your "8th amendment" overreaching ignores precedent and sociology.

jw
edit on 7-9-2012 by jdub297 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by Pinke
 


All studies agree that incarceration serves one or more of the following functions:
Retribution, Isolation, Rehabilitation and Deterrence.

Your "8th amendment" overreaching ignores precedent and sociology.

jw


I am unclear on the root of your perspective but I disagree that "all" studies point to this as a mandatory set of functions of incarceration. It depends on the culture and society which authors the penal system within criminal justice.

One article from 2003 comments on the US system:


Until the mid-1970s, rehabilitation was a key part of U.S. prison policy. Prisoners were encouraged to develop occupational skills and to resolve psychological problems--such as substance abuse or aggression--that might interfere with their reintegration into society. Indeed, many inmates received court sentences that mandated treatment for such problems.

Since then, however, rehabilitation has taken a back seat to a "get tough on crime" approach that sees punishment as prison's main function, says Haney. The approach has created explosive growth in the prison population, while having at most a modest effect on crime rates.

As a result, the United States now has more than 2 million people in prisons or jails--the equivalent of one in every 142 U.S. residents--and another four to five million people on probation or parole. A higher percentage of the population is involved in the criminal justice system in the United States than in any other developed country.


While the human reaction of 'getting even' and 'revenge' and other such attitude does prevail in our country (and many others) I offer one dissenting question. It's one that doesn't seem to matter much - admittedly - but nevertheless... what of those who through accident or deficiency end up both wrongly accused and convicted though innocent? Are we going to compound the miscarriage of "justice" by "punishing" them for being accused, by denying them what has been prescribed as necessary medical treatment (not that I have to agree with that - but it was.)

Unfortunately, and without argument cynically, I feel that the main reason for this particular prisoners' angst and suffering are more likely a concern for the prison industry as an "expense" as opposed to any notion of criminal justice. Fortunately for them, the criminal in question evokes feelings of repugnance and scorn.. which makes their case more appealing from a populist position than the doctors' from a medical one.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join