Appeals court: Sex reassignment surgery must be provided

Post Reply New Topic

Surprisingly, the Kosilek case will be reheard en banc, with a hearing set for May:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/0 ... story.html

There's not a whole lot of info, however, and PACER (the federal court reporting system) didn't go into much detail except that the active judges voted to rehear the case, withdraw both the majority and dissenting opinions, and set out what the parties can do from here and when and where the rehearing will occur.

My interpretation of the future of this case:

1.) If the full Court upholds the panel's and District Court's ruling, then that would somewhat strengthen Kosilek's case, and the Supreme Court would be less likely to grant certiorari than if the full Court had not reheard the case.

2.) If the full Court strikes down the panel's and District Court's ruling, then I think that Kosilek would ultimately fail to obtain SRS. I would not expect the Supreme Court to grant certiorari for an appeal by Kosilek.

If no. 2 holds, then it is unclear what impact that would have for the provision of SRS to prisoners in the future. A 4th Circuit Court ruling in De'lonta v. Johnson (2013) upheld the possibility that in some cases of GID, prisons may need to provide SRS to inmates. I think the impact will be less if no. 2 holds primarily because of security concerns, because those can vary from case to case, but it would be chilling (and have implications stretching far beyond those regarding SRS) if treatment ordered by a prison's doctor, in accordance with the standards of care and the medical and psychiatric reference texts, can be denied on the basis of an opposing expert.

I actually would support Taxpayer funded tattoo removal for prisoners who want to get rid of tattoos that show Gang Affiliations in order for that person to get on with their lives outside of the gang that they formerly belonged to.

I also support some type of societal reintegration for prisoners rather than barring ex-con felons from many things that free people take for granted, and no, owning a gun us not one of them unless they can show a spotless criminal record for ten or so years after serving their sentance. --Doing much of the above would probably take a serious bite out of penal recidivism.

That being said, my answer is still NO on the taxpayer funded sex change.

The fact that they are in a position of not being able to afford to pay for the operation on their own is a problem entirely of their own creation.

It's a treatment for a psychiatric disorder. If they refuse to treat that they could just as easily refuse to treat other psychiatric disorders too. It is not just some random cosmetic surgery to make someone feel better.

That's like saying why treat someone for anorexia, just make them eat or why treat an alcoholic, they won't even have access to alcohol in prison so they won't be drinking any more, or why treat a prisoner for depression, they are just sitting in solitary not bothering anyone, it's a waste of money drugging them. That last example I saw on a fictional prison tv show and after being denied antidepressants to cut costs they tried to commit suicide.

California did have an excellent program wherein incarcerated gang members were able to get their gang tattoos removed by medical students in their last couple of years before becoming plastic surgeons (or whatever type of doctor who removes tattoos).

And, of course, neo-Nazi or Aryan or any other 'ink' that identified someone as a member of a group or mindset that scared the living daylights out of most of us.

The new doctors got to work on real, live people, and the inmates had a better chance of a fresh start.

If it were up to me, sentencing would fit the crime and the whole 9 yards of the sentence would be served with very rare early release exceptions and only then for truly exemplary conduct. A life sentence would be just that; incarcerated until death occurs. Having stated that, once the sentence has been served ALL rights (yep, gun ownership included) would be fully restored since the individual would have completely served their sentence and paid their debt to society. I can't see turning someone out of prison with with the deck stacked against them for being sent back.

Why do people accept all of the assumptions disseminated by the prison industrial complex spin machine?

It's barely about justice at all. It has more to do with squeezing wealth out of the underclass. This being the case, I am all for the victims of tyranny to wring any amount of pleasure they can out of the system that has enslaved them.

Generally agreed, but I would do the full rights thing strictly on a case by case basis. --I would feel safer giving a somebody convicted of vehicular manslaughter the right to purchase a gun immediately after release than I would in giving an accountant convicted of fraud for 'cooking the books' on their clients a calculator and a copy of MS Office, or for that matter, somebody who madfe a career of armed robbery further access to firearms until a time that they can prove that they no longer have the will to use them to commit crimes.

Still though, if somebody has done their time, they have payed their debts to society, and pretty much all of their rights should be restored. and they should not be made a marginalised underclass they way that they are now,

Well, I think that Kosilek getting the surgery has a much lower chance than before, because it looks like the full Circuit Court, and probably the Supreme Court as well, is going to lean towards the DOC's position and the dissent in the panel ruling--dissenting opinions can be important! Kosilek has only about a 40% chance of winning, I think.

The reason why I think this is is because of a statement from Kosilek's lawyer back on 1/31 when the petition for a rehearing was filed by the DOC:

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/01/mass ... t-surgery/

Well, that didn't quite go as planned, did it? I read the DOC's petition and it's fairly persuasive, at least on the surface, though I'm not sure I fully understand a lot of its finer nuances. Anyway, rehearings like this are supposed to be comparatively rare; this rehearing means that the majority of judges on the Circuit Court think that something isn't quite right with how the case has been handled thus far.

I asked GLAD about this development, and they responded with this:



But you know, with all that, there is just this feeling Kosilek's losing now. Like Kosilek had a good run of things so far, but now she's hitting a wall. This was just the last gasp of an organization that knows it's going to lose this case deep down inside--they just aren't willing to admit it.

So yup, I'd put Kosilek's chances of winning at this point at about 40%. We get to spend a long time waiting to see the outcome, as the rehearing isn't until May and it may be several months before the ruling is issued.

Sure it should be treated, but to a point. I am a poor person, I barely make enough to survive. If you hand out sexual reassignment surgeries paid for by the government to everybody who asked for one, the overhead costs of living will go up for not only myself but for everybody else. I will be stuck paying for somebody else's problems with even less money than I currently have, I will not be able to accquire a better skillset than I currently have due to the fact that I will be, (In the case that I lived in Massacussetts) paying for sexual reassignment surgery for somebody who is serving a life sentance for murder, where they will not benefit from the sexual reassignment surgery other than the fact that they will feel 'completely natural' after the surgery.

Heroin addicts and crackheads also have a psychological condition brought about by prolonged heroin and crack usage. Should we apply the above argument to them, then taxpayers, (this means you and I, as well as anybody else who pays taxes either outright, or by proxy would be funding their continued usage of the above drugs, because their would be government programs in place to ensure that they have access to the drugs that they use, and no real impetetus to confront their addictions head on and lose them.

Actually, the cost argument's pretty weak, as the AMA determined it to be nearly cost-saving. Also, no one is arguing that it be provided "to everybody who asked for one," except for a few activists. There are the Standards of Care (q.v.), which or variants of which are accepted in the medical and psychiatric literature, and none of them come anywhere near "surgery on demand."

No surprise that the AMA would arrive at that conclusion. The AMA is a union who's purpose is to line it's members pockets with money.

Are you a copy of that guy (or gal) I went head to head with on the ABA Journal comments page?

Anyway, if that is the case, then why does the Oxford University Press in its New Oxford Textbook of Psychiatry also recommend the treatment in certain, appropriately evaluated cases?

No, I'm not a shyster so I wouldn't be interested in even looking at anything ABA related.

LOL. That's good to know.

BTW, congrats on not taking the bait!

I support the state giving free gender reassignment surgery to convicts only after the state gives all the surgery that is needed to the people who aren't in prison. That includes surgery to fix things that cause uninsured people severe depression. Once they start doing that, then it's fine with me if they go into prisons and start doing it there. Wouldn't you get pissed if since you cant get the surgery you really feel that you need out here in the free world that the state was giving it to some killer?