And there are those, like me, who look at the larger issue and picture. I won't argue about the medical decision, it's fair and proper, but for all, which it does, but the difference here is that the State of Massachusetts is paying the bill, as noted below, and all the rest of us have to write our own checks for the surgery.
And that's the real issue, not the surgery or the mandate, but who's paying the bill. When a woman was denied in California for the same reason this inmate was approved, who's right? But in the end, I still think the State of Massachusetts has the right to say no to non-life threatening surgery, and this surgery is it.
In addition, to those who think the inmate will do better in the women's prison, do we really think this inmate will be treated any differently in a women's prison when they know he had surgery?
Update (9/28/12).-- The State of Massachusetts has decided to appeal the initial ruling against the DOC and order SRS for the inmate. While you can argue both or either side, this is a good idea, to take the case as far as it will go, if only to determine if the state is required to provide non-life threatening but medically "necessary" proceedure.
Remember this is more than the surgery alone, it will include the travel, lodging, post-op care facility, the extraneous medical costs, and above all, the security while he is away from prison. Remember he's serving a life sentence so he will require 24-hour security so he doesn't escape.
And all this presumes the DOC finds a surgeon willing to provide the surgery. In all, the state could easily be looking at upwards of $100K for the surgery. You can argue all his rights in the world, you can equally argue the state's right to say no.
And let's not forget an inmate in California was denied surgery and she will be released in the future to have a real life outside prison. The State said no to her and the federal court agreed with them. No surgery. So why should an inmate in Massachusetts be treated differently?
And my view expressed here hasn't changed.
The inmate sued the DOC in 2000 to provide the surgery as the inmate was diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder (GID), described in the American Psychiatry Assocation DSM-IV years before during a previous incarceration, and after years of litigation, the court issued the ruling.
Well, this has split the transcommunity. Some in the transcommunity feels people with GID should have the full complement of treatment to transition to who they are, and paid by whatever means necessary.
Usually it's the individual and sometimes the employers and less often the health insurance companies. The question in this case is that should SRS, which can cost over $30,000 in the US for travel, surgery, medical care and lodging, be fully paid by taxpayers, which is what the judge ordered for the inmate.
And that's the conumdrum and the split in the community, those arguing it shouldn't be free to inmates, or paid for those on Medicare (not plan B) or Medicaid (some states have provided it but none on record do now), and those arguing it's a condition to be treated and care is care, however it's paid, taxpayers, insurance or individual.
I'm for getting insurance companies to add GID coverage to their policies as the vast majority don't and only then when the company specifically wants and pays for it. It's the one mental condition deliberatly indentified and not fully covered under health insurance.
That's not a business decision by them but a moral one, which the courts should rule for the rights of the patient. Even President Obama has not ordered it covered under the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan (FEHB) which is paid by the government and employee/retiree. And the VA does not provide SRS for transitioning active or retired service personnel.
It's not that expensive and not that common, far less than some of the more serious and even rare diseases, illnesses and conditions now covered. And it's a one time deal where the patient is cured so it won't come back to bite them. It's, as they would see, cheap insurance.
But I don't agree the taxpayers to pick up the tab for the whole treatment. Otherwise, it's a free ride for the individual to be diagnosed and get their transition paid by the rest of us. Let's understand this person killed another person and will never leave prison.
This person will be a victim of violence in either a men's or women's prison. This person had the chance to transition outside of prison in between sentences and chose not to transition but commit crimes and be reincarcerated. This person deserves care for life-threatening reasons but SRS is not it, not life-threatening.
The arguments for this person to have SRS focuses on SRS and overlooks this person's character and status as a "lifer" who'll never see the outside of a prison. They don't need SRS to be an inmate, especially at taxpayers expense.
No comments:
Post a Comment