TG Prison News Revisited

[aimlesswander]

After discussing with my partner, who is a second year law student, I have changed my mind on the issue in favor of Kosilek, mainly for legal reasons.  No, I don't find her to be a good poster-child for the trans community, nor do I agree with the actions she took against her wife.  However, that is in NO WAY a part of her lawsuit.  I know it's

Comments

[aimlesswander]

Some would disagree on the point between physical and psychological well-being. There is evidence that transsexuals are at a higher risk for suicide and that SRS is an appropriate treatment. It isn't up to you or I to decide who qualifies for that treatment. Of course, prisoners should be held to the same standard guidelines for treatment that citizens on the outside are held to; they should have to be evaluated by a psychologist, etc. in order to receive treatment. If you feel that SRS is not a medical necessity, that is fine. Then we basically disagree on that point alone and the rest of the debate is moot. However, if you believe that sex reassignment surgery IS medically necessary for transgender individuals seeking that treatment, then this statement is true for ALL transpeople who want that medical care, not just the ones you deem morally fit to receive it. I, for one, would like for there to be universal healthcare for U.S. citizens, and I think that the healthcare plan should include SRS for those who qualify for it (again, must pass psychological assessment & any other standards). Is it hard to accept that as things stand today, you and I have to pay out of pocket? Yes, of course, but I still want change for the future.

As for landing in prison for a shorter stint, I refer to this: http://community.livejournal.com/free_speech_ftm/25498.html?thread=874650#t874650 . In case the link doesn't work, I will cite this, "People all over this country struggle to pay for all kinds of medicine...often far more expensive and far more urgent than SRS... Oddly enough, there doesn't seem to be a rash of people committing crimes in order to go to prison and take advantage of the sweet, sweet free medical care there. In fact, I've never heard of such a case. Maybe that's because they're aware that, however desperate their situation, it is infinitely better in any number of ways than that of a prisoner" -climanis.

I voiced the same fear you did about people committing crimes to land in jail for free surgery. After taking the time to really think about it, the claim just doesn't hold up. In order to get SRS, you would still be held to the same standards of care. In other words, you would have to be seen by a psychologist and live as your proper gender for up to a year before even getting surgery. In order for that to occur, you would have to commit a crime that carries over a one-year jail sentence (time to be evaluated, time to have the surgery, and time to recover from the surgery). Now we're talking about committing a felony. Having "felony" stamped on your record will prevent you from getting a decent job once you leave prison. Also, despite all the "luxuries" we may talk about of living in prison--free food, medical treatment, library, etc.--it doesn't compare to the freedom outside of jail. Prisoners are more likely to be assaulted just by living in prison. They face serious bodily harm, as well as a stigma that never leaves them once they are returned to society. I am not saying that there won't be people who "abuse" the system despite all of these facts, but the fear of a few people supposedly "cheating" the system does not outweigh the rights of everyone else. Again, this same argument can be used to refuse treatment to just about anyone for anything--"Oh, sorry, you can't be treated for heart disease because somebody else who has it might try to get free treatment by committing a crime and going to jail."

[lin_transman]

I can see yur point. I'm sorry, but it took me over 35 years to be able to have the chest reconstruction surgery because of the cost factor. I had a heart attack 12 years ago - and went bankrupt from the financial problems that resulted from it. I owned a small business at the time - and lost it, just when I had been planning to expand. All of my hard work was finally about to pay off, but I ended up with nothing but my car, my dog and the clothes on my back.

I have a lot of resentment that taxpayers might have to foot the bill for this, when I fought so hard to make things work and just couldn't pull it off for such a long period of time - and then lost everything I had because of a mediacl emergency and the way our health care system is set up.

I wouldn't have the problem with it that I do if *everyone* could receive the health care that they need in this country. People struggle so hard to make ends meet and can't get that care when they are fighting tooth and nail for it. Our seniors and those who are disabled often have to decide if they are going to eat or buy their meds. That shouldn't happen. We are, by far, the wealthiest country in the world. We shouldn't have homeless people wandering the streets. We shouldn't have children without enough food. And we shouldn't have people who can't get the health care they need - anywhere. That includes in prison. However, I think that it's more important to fight to get blanket coverage for everyone than it is to fight for one specific person.

I am well aware of the increased risk of suicide in preop trans folks. In fact, I've given workshops on the topic. I know this is an important issue, but there are a lot of things that need to change. I'm just not sure this is the best place to rally. Yes, we may have a vested interest in the outcome of the case, but it is the entire system that needs to be changed to address the needs of all the citizens of this country - not just those with a particular diagnosis.

[aimlesswander]

I can see how you are conflicted on this issue, since your statements support my viewpoint yet you continue to argue against me. I think you are allowing your bitterness (over waiting so long & paying out of pocket for surgery) overshadow the real point of this issue. If the court rules that SRS is "medically necessary" and Kosilek gets treatment, then that landmark decision will affect ALL prisoners in U.S. correctional facilities, NOT just one specific person, as you say. Your biggest beef is that Kosilek would be getting something for free that you had to work so hard for, but the fact of the matter is that as a free citizen in a country without universal healthcare, you are responsible for your own care. You can use your own money to select the doctor you want to see and go to the hospital you want (yes, I understand this works better in theory b/c a lot of people cannot financially afford healthcare, but bear with me). On the other side of the coin, the government is responsible for the healthcare prisoners receive. Prisoners have absolutely no way to provide for their own healthcare because they are confined to prison. This means that if you needed a heart transplant but couldn't afford one, you wouldn't get it. If a prisoner needed one, that prisoner would receive it. It doesn't matter if you think you deserve the heart transplant more than the prisoner. Since the U.S. has already declared that we will not treat prisoners cruelly and unusually, the government undertakes the burden of care for prisoners. By siding against Kosilek's petition that SRS is medically necessary, you are only bolstering the same position that health insurance companies have taken against transpeople. You are stating that a transperson does not need to medically transition. Again, if this is your belief, you should come out and say it instead of skirting the issue. On this point, you and I clearly disagree.