Page 4 of 4 [ 52 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Tensu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,661
Location: Nixa, MO, USA

25 Sep 2012, 8:00 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Sylkat wrote:
The individual in question pre-meditatedly killed his wife and left her to rot.
Sorry for the bluntness,but from what I have been able to find, he had been hitting or beating her previously.
He wants expensive surgery while hundreds of incarcerated people of either gender or any sexual orientation cannot get adequate dental care, medical care, education(many have turned to crime due to simply being unable to read or do basic math), due to lack of money in the prison system
These people need psychiatric help, job training, anger management and inter-personal behavior training and cannot get what they need because there is not enough MONEY.
When every cavity and abscess is fixed,and every illness or condition, especially the possibly contagious ones, and every convict is job-ready, then, if there is enough money left, THEN consider the procedure.

Sylkat


Perhaps the correct solution is to ensure that government actually provides the amount of money that is required to maintain its prison population. American's have fetishized crime and punishment, and have created a vast underclass of prisoners, without making corresponding commitments to ensure that they have adequate housing and services.

I think the expense is a canard. Would we countenance depriving a prisoner of kidney dialysis? It's vastly more expensive than MTF sex reassignment surgery, but we view it as life-saving and thus on a different level. Should government pay for botox? Very inexpensive, but not medically necessary.

At the end of the day, I think we have to remember first principles:

1) When approved by physicians and psychologists, sex reassignment is medically necessary surgery.
2) Prisoners have a different relationship with the state than other citizens and cannot obtain the necessities of life from any other source.

If you put these two principles together, the result should be a foregone conclusion. The fact that other prisoner are in desperate need of housing, care and education does not diminish this woman's need. It merely mandates that government must come up to the plate in these areas as well.


I see you are claiming that gender re-assignment surgery in necessary in the same sense that say, surgery to fix a broken leg is necessary; the condition may not be fatal, but it causes constant problems for the afflictee. You are saying that because of this, the government should fund the surgery.

And if our government got its funding from a bottomless money fountain, I would agree with you.

But that is not the case. The government has limited funding and there are simply more pressing matters that need attention. Since prison is not exactly supposed to be happy fun time, I'm going to say reducing the psychological stress of a convicted murderer is prudent use of government funds.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

26 Sep 2012, 12:20 pm

Tensu wrote:
I see you are claiming that gender re-assignment surgery in necessary in the same sense that say, surgery to fix a broken leg is necessary; the condition may not be fatal, but it causes constant problems for the afflictee. You are saying that because of this, the government should fund the surgery.

And if our government got its funding from a bottomless money fountain, I would agree with you.

But that is not the case. The government has limited funding and there are simply more pressing matters that need attention. Since prison is not exactly supposed to be happy fun time, I'm going to say reducing the psychological stress of a convicted murderer is prudent use of government funds.


Government is about making choices, I agree. But choices can never exempt government from paying for things that it has a legal obligation to fund. Even if government funding is not a bottomless well, those things that it is legally obligated to do must come first.

So the question then becomes, "Should the courts make decisions about government's legal obligations based on government's access to money?"

I say no. The Constitution and Congress having established the legal obligations to fund, it is not for the Courts to intrude and limit those obligations. Congress is free to legislate in this area, and see if that legislation will stand up to constitutional scrutiny. But until Congress does so, the Courts should not inquire into the fiscal pressures that are exclusively a matter to be resolved by the legislature.


_________________
--James


Tensu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,661
Location: Nixa, MO, USA

26 Sep 2012, 1:52 pm

I see, so you are not saying that this is a prudent use of government funds (because it clearly isn't) but simply that the government made a promise to provide health care to prisoners and has an obligation to fulfill that promise until legislation is passed that allows government to ignore certain needs, and the courts must uphold the law, even if it is flawed. I could see that. :chin:

I wonder if government has refused to pay for something like this before. Seems likely they have, but I don't know any examples so I'm just guessing.



beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

30 Sep 2013, 11:24 pm

Kosilek griping that Appeals Court isn't ruling fast enough. Gripe away, I say.

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/lo ... sex_change