tax payer funded sex change operation for inmate.

[DeletedUser]

Judge orders inmate's taxpayer-funded sex change
(AP) BOSTON - A federal judge on Tuesday ordered state prison officials to provide taxpayer-funded sex-reassignment surgery to a transgender inmate serving life in prison for murder.

Michelle Kosilek was born male but has received hormone treatments and now lives as a woman in an all-male prison. Robert Kosilek was convicted of murder in the killing of his wife in 1990.

U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf is believed to be the first federal judge to order prison officials to provide sex-reassignment surgery for a transgender inmate.

Kosilek first sued the Massachusetts Department of Correction 12 years ago. Two years later, Wolf ruled that Kosilek was entitled to treatment for gender-identity disorder but stopped short of ordering surgery. Kosilek sued again in 2005, arguing that the surgery is a medical necessity.

In his ruling Tuesday, Wolf found that surgery is the "only adequate treatment" for Kosilek's "serious medical need."

"The court finds that there is no less intrusive means to correct the prolonged violation of Kosilek's Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical care," Wolf wrote in his 126-page ruling.

Prison officials have repeatedly cited security risks in the case, saying that allowing Kosilek to have the surgery would make her a target for sexual assaults by other inmates.

But Wolf, who was appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1985, found that the security concerns are "either pretextual or can be dealt with." He said it would be up to prison officials to decide how and where to house Kosilek after the surgery.

Diane Wiffin, a spokeswoman for the prisons department, said the agency would have no immediate comment on the ruling.

"We are reviewing the decision and exploring our appellate options," Wiffin said.

In a telephone interview last year with The Associated Press, Kosilek said the surgery is a medical necessity, not a frivolous desire to change her appearance.

"Everybody has the right to have their health care needs met, whether they are in prison or out on the streets," Kosilek said. "People in the prisons who have bad hearts, hips or knees have surgery to repair those things. My medical needs are no less important or more important than the person in the cell next to me."

Wolf noted in his ruling that the Department of Correction's own medical experts testified that they believe surgery was the only adequate treatment for Kosilek.

The department's ex-commissioner Kathleen Dennehy testified that providing Kosilek the surgery would present insurmountable security concerns, but Wolf said Kosilek had proven that those purported concerns masked the real reason for denying surgery: "a fear of controversy, criticism, ridicule and scorn."

Kosilek's lawsuit has become fodder for radio talk shows and lawmakers who say the state should not be forced to pay for a convicted murderer's sex-change operation — which can cost up to $20,000 — especially since many insurance companies reject the surgery as elective.

Inmates in Colorado, California, Idaho and Wisconsin have sued unsuccessfully to try to get the surgery, making similar arguments that denying it violates the U.S. Constitution's protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

Wolf noted that Kosilek's gender-identity disorder has caused Kosilek such anguish that she has tried to castrate herself and twice tried to commit suicide, including once while on Prozac.

Kosilek's lead attorney, Frances Cohen, called the decision courageous and thoughtful.

"We feel very grateful that the judge listened very carefully to the medical experts and has given Michelle Kosilek what the prison doctors had recommended," Cohen said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57505707/mass-judge-oks-sex-change-for-inmate/

what are your thoughts about this? should people have to pay for other's sex change operations, or how about a breast augmentation (or reduction).

Us people from Massachusetts have always been known for are backwards thinking..... I mean innovative forward thinking, but this is ridicules.

 

[DeletedUser34315]

It is an elective surgery, and therefore the state should not have had to pay for it.

 

[DeletedUser]

It is an elective surgery, and therefore the state should not have had to pay for it.

Correction. In many, but not all, cases it is an elective surgery (reread the article). However, insurance companies have and do provide coverage for a sex-change operation when it is deemed, by medical professionals, not to be an elective surgery and instead make a reasonable case that it is a necessity. In the above example, the person clearly is distraught about having male body parts and medical professionals have determined it is a medical necessity, not an elective.

As to the comparison to breast augmentation, that is cosmetic except in the cases of post-cancer masectomies.

Look, it's easy for us to sit there and say it's wrong, because we have the sexual organs we feel we were supposed to have. But, what if you were born with a vagina? Would you, as a male, be okay with that or would it mess with your head?

And don't forget the many cases of people born with both organs and doctors in the past making the call that it's easier to hack off the male organ than it is to remove the female organs, only to have that person grow up identifying themselves as a male.

Point being, when sitting in a sexist couch, reclining in comfort with one's sex organs, it's easy to chastise those who are different, who don't feel as we do, who do not sit in comfort with their sex organs, who are not happy being male, or female, or both, or neither.

Now, the call is simple: The patient's doctors have indicated it is a necessity. At that point, there should be no "insurance" or "political" or "bureaucratic" squabbles. The problem here isn't about gender identity, sex organs, patient's rights, or political correctness, it's about respecting the medical profession. If a doctor says, "it's a necessity," you get a second opinion. If a second doctor says, "it's a necessity," you can continue to get more opinions in a desperate search for contradicting diagnosese. But, in this particular case, every doctor that evaluated the patient came to the same conclusion, which is that it is a medical necessity.

So, if all doctors who evaluate a patient determines something is a medical necessity, it is in violation of the law to deny said medical necessity from being provided.

That's the legal. Argue politics in the bedroom all night long, but don't think that prejudisms or political leanings should have anything to do with the determination of medical professionals. That's the real issue here, not "ooo but he's gay."

 

[DeletedUser]

the real question here Helllstromm is should you be paying for this operation for someone else, without your consent?

if someone came up to you and said "im going to take $20 a week out of your paycheck" and said it was to go to someone else for their sex change operation. what would you say to them.

 

[DeletedUser]

Do you understand that you pay for all medical care for all prisoners? Do you realize the correctional facilities have a legal obligation to provide medical care to all inmates, dictated by the federal government, whom you authorized to impose such mandates?

If you don't like the law that requires Federal and State correctional facilities to provide needed medical care, then push to have the law changed. But that's not what you're pushing here. You're pushing the notion that non-medical personnel should be able to dictate what is and is not medical care, when the only persons trained in and licensed to make such calls are doctors.

Just because you, PERSONALLY, don't think a sex operation is a medical necessity does not trump the doctors that determined otherwise. So, until you obtain a doctorates degree in medicine and/or psychiatry, review the patient's records, and evaluate the patient's condition from a medical/psychiatric perspective, you really have nothing more to stand on than sexist presumptions.

Am I right? Or are you indicating that the government should have the authority to overrule the determination of medical professionals just so they can save some money? Because if you're saying that, I can point to an old thread of yours where you were raging about death panels falsely attributed to the universal healthcare mandate.

Do you think the government should mandate what is and is not medical necessity? Do you think bureaucrats and politicians should have the power to dismiss the determinations made by medical professionals as to whether a medical procedure is necessary? I mean it, seriously, put your prejudisms aside and examine that core question because that's really what you're posing here.

 

[DeletedUser]

Sorry HS but it is ridiculous, I agree with the OP. It is completely unfair when law abiding citizens are dying of cancer because they cannot afford the treatment, with or without insurance coverage, but in the same time they are paying for inmates' cancer treatments and sex changes.

 

[DeletedUser]

the real question here Helllstromm is should you be paying for this operation for someone else, without your consent?

if someone came up to you and said "im going to take $20 a week out of your paycheck" and said it was to go to someone else for their sex change operation. what would you say to them.

$20 a week from every US taxpayer would be north of $100 billion p/a, and would seem a little excessive.
However, what we are actually talking about amounts to a few thousandths of a cent a week at most. If you actively concern yourself with every fraction of a tax-cent you spend, I respect that, but I would not sacrifice personal hygiene for it myself.
I take the pragmatic view that other people pay for libraries and parks that I enjoy at their expense and am happy to accept the quid pro quo that I also pay for things that I derive no benefit from, and if something is so outrageously wrong, like bank bonuses or politicians' expenses there are legitimate democratic methods of changing the system.
So good luck Gizmo in gettring this through Congress or whatever.

 

[DeletedUser34315]

Very well, this mole on my face causes me extreme distress, and is compromising my mental health. Oh, and since I'm in prison, it's clearly the taxpayers responsibility to pay for it to be removed....
-_-

 

[DeletedUser]

I cannot help but wonder, if he had a co-pay (like all people with insurance do), would he still consider it a necessity? If I had no conscience and became very ill, I'd just burglarize a store and get the free treatment myself. By the time I am all better, I finish my sentence and then go retire with the money I saved. How about that?
Is easy to take advantage of the system, as it is now. To bad many of us do have a conscience huh?! We just take it in silence and think there's nothing we can do about it. Is due to this attitude that we got to the point where we pay for a convict's sexual change surgery.

 

[DeletedUser]

Seems to me, Duduie, you don't feel we should have to pay for medical expenses associated with the treatment of people incarcerated in our correctional facilities. You keep saying, "convict" like it's a lessor life form...

The correctional facilities exist in their present form, here in the U.S., because us citizens designed it that way. We want to be civil and humane (unlike how your correctional facilities are in your home country) and thus we have imposed mandates, legal responsibilities as to how we will treat our prisoners. If you wish to quibble on the specificities of what constitutes civil & humane, you would be entering a quite hazardous slippery slope.

Once again, you are not a doctor, nor have you evaluated this patient. You are instead looking ONLY at the type of procedure and allowing sexism, not medical expertise, to dictate policy.

Gandalf, I don't know about you, but that mole on your face is causing me extreme stress! Seriously though, how is it you think to compare sex organs and sexual orientation with your mole? That's just a disconnect. And once more, above all that, why is it you think you know more than a doctor to determine what is and is not a medical necessity?

 

[DeletedUser]

Lately, civil and humane seems to be bordering on socialism.

 

[DeletedUser]

Lately, civil and humane seems to be bordering on socialism.

lol, wait wait... rofl. Wait, hold on... lmao.

Do you really want me to pose the history of socialism, the culling of races, religious sects, and sexual orientations? Do you really want this thread derailed into a discussion about the gulags, the torture, the mass murdering of prisoners that has happened in, and continues to happen in socialist states.

Perhaps you might want to retract that line of comedy.

 

[DeletedUser15641]

I don't think anyone except the person who wants to change sexuality should pay the surgery not anyone else except if it was some kind of other case like if the doctor have done something wrong in his first attempt to change than the doc should pay almost all expenses to avoid a lawsuit.

 

[DeletedUser]

Obviously the democrat's go to answer when talking about socialism. I was referring to socialism in theory, not practice, obviously. Wanna talk history? I lived it and trust me, it ain't pretty. On paper, in theory, it sounds good, even civil and humanitarian. Yes, socialism and communism are oh so pretty on paper. And the "humanitarian" bla bla you describe, borders on socialism, in theory. There are many many differences between socialism on paper and in practice. And you so well knew what I was referring to, but chose to play on words to serve your purpose, oh so rich!
Yes, in practice is not so pretty. But that was not what I was referring to. The more "humanitarian" this system gets, the more socialist it becomes. And the tax payers will stop carrying the burdens of others. My home country is a "well-fare state", I know how that is too. Regions such as Transylvania opted for regionalism many times, but if that happens, other regions will die and Transylvania will be overpopulated (it already started as it is), so the government does not allow it.
And what you are referring to are prisoners tortured because they are considered spies/rebels/against the system/the resistance/traitors, whatever you want to call them. People lied about their friends and neighbors to get 1 more food stamp for their kids. So innocent people were put in jail on treason charges and tortured. That's not what we are talking about here.

 

[DeletedUser]

Did the objectors really read the OP?

"the Department of Correction's own medical experts testified that they believe surgery was the only adequate treatment for Kosilek"

And Judge Wolf upheld the prisoner's rights under the 8th Amendment.

So any objection must be founded on the premiss that the poster is a) medically more competent than the Dept. of Correction's medical experts, b) legally more competent than the US judiciary or c) legislatively more competent than Congress.
I really doubt that for all their noise, anyone here can seriously claim any such competence.
The same people who vociferously claim their own constitutional rights sometimes seem very happy to deny the rights of others. The Constitution prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment" and the judiciary with medical guidance rules what this means.
That's all you need to know. The operation was deemed to be the prisoner's constitutional right. Either you support the Bill of Rights or you don't - it's not a pick-and-mix smorgasbord.

 

[DeletedUser]

Did the objectors really read the OP?

"the Department of Correction's own medical experts testified that they believe surgery was the only adequate treatment for Kosilek"

And Judge Wolf upheld the prisoner's rights under the 8th Amendment.

So any objection must be founded on the premiss that the poster is a) medically more competent than the Dept. of Correction's medical experts, b) legally more competent than the US judiciary or c) legislatively more competent than Congress.
I really doubt that for all their noise, anyone here can seriously claim any such competence.
The same people who vociferously claim their own constitutional rights sometimes seem very happy to deny the rights of others. The Constitution prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment" and the judiciary with medical guidance rules what this means.
That's all you need to know. The operation was deemed to be the prisoner's constitutional right. Either you support the Bill of Rights or you don't - it's not a pick-and-mix smorgasbord.

Spoken like a true tyrant. FYI, citizens have the right to propose bills. The fact that this does not happen in a million years, it does not meant that it is not possible. Thus, every person is as legislatively competent as Congress.
Plus, everybody is entitled to an opinion about anything in a Debate and Discussion thread. We are not passing a law, nor denying anybody any kind of right. We have the right to be appalled by the loopholes and the advantage some take of the system.

 

[DeletedUser]

Indeed, how dare those doctors claim it's a medical necessity! Who gave them the right to make such claims?! We ignorant folk should rise up and do away with all them thar newfangled technologies an' high-falootin' edumacation eunichversitays!

Umm, did any of you even consider the possibility there are "medical" reasons why it is being deemed a "medical necessity" by "medical doctors," not merely psychiatrists? No, of course not. The whole notion is repulsive to your sensibilities, why bother to find out, right? Far easier to use this as a pulpit to rage against non-standard sexual orientations.

 

[DeletedUser]

Umm, sorry. Did I, in any of my posts, ever claim that? No. What does not sit well with me is the fact that the inmates get full complete coverage on the taxpayers money. Like I said before, it is not fair for Person A who is dying of cancer because he/she cannot afford the treatment or co-pay, to be paying for Person B's cancer treatment, just because person B is in prison for breaking the law and person A is a law abiding taxpayer. It is not a fair system, I repeat: IT BORDERS ON SOCIALISM.
But yeah, when you have nothing to say to that, accuse me again of being bothered because of the inmate's sex change on taxpayer's expense (even though I never expressed such feelings).

 

[DeletedUser]

Umm, sorry. Did I, in any of my posts, ever claim that? No. What does not sit well with me is the fact that the inmates get full complete coverage on the taxpayers money. Like I said before, it is not fair for Person A who is dying of cancer because he/she cannot afford the treatment or co-pay, to be paying for Person B's cancer treatment, just because person B is in prison for breaking the law and person A is a law abiding taxpayer. It is not a fair system, I repeat: IT BORDERS ON SOCIALISM.
But yeah, when you have nothing to say to that, accuse me again of being bothered because of the inmate's sex change on taxpayer's expense (even though I never expressed such feelings).

The penal system in america has been the same for many years it is a government funded operation and the government is funded by the people. This agreement is fine as long as we lock these people dont feed them and dont clothe them but by god when we take care of another human life that is just a burden on my tax dollars. If a doctor deemed it a necessity then that is what it is we pay for these people to live their life out in prison this wont raise my taxes by to much more as they are anyway so fine with it, sure i wont even see a difference. And in America there are ways of gaining governmental help for your patient A. Which is the main reason republicans want Obama and the democratic party out of office because they refer to your patient A as a leech on society.

 

[DeletedUser34315]

I'll bet i can find some "medical experts" and a judge that are convinced removing this mole is a medical necessity.
Even judges and doctors are influenced by a worldview.