Conquer Club

jimboston wrote:(Reuters) - A federal judge has ordered Massachusetts officials to pay for a convicted murderer's sex change operation, ruling that the state had violated the inmate's constitutional rights in denying the procedure.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/ ... V820120905

How frickin' ridiculous is this?

Please don't bother trying to tell me it's a justified medical expense. It will just prove to me that you are more idiotic than this judge.

Honestly... how is this possible? Why are we not frickin' outraged?

jonesthecurl wrote:I'd have thought that cutting off a criminal's meat and two veg would fit right in with a lot of right-wingers' preferences...

jimboston wrote:Interesting that there are not more comments.

At least no one has voted to say this was/is a reasonable medical expense.

In a 126-page order issued in Boston, U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf found in favor of Michelle Kosilek, who sued the Massachusetts Department of Correction 12 years ago to force it to provide him the surgery while imprisoned.

Wolf said senior corrections officials engaged in patterns of "pretense, pretext and prevarication" to deny Kosilek the treatment he was entitled to and which had been recommended by department medical staff. The court had previously ruled in 2002 that Kosilek should at least be evaluated for the surgery.

Although Kosilek legally changed his name -- he was formerly Robert Kosilek -- and has been taking hormones that have caused his breasts to grow, the judge used male pronouns throughout the order. He is incarcerated in a state prison for male inmates.

Kosilek, according to court records, has suffered from gender identity disorder since he was a small child. He married a counselor he met while in drug rehabilitation, but murdered her in 1990 after she caught him wearing her clothes.

He was convicted in 1992 and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

"In this case Kosilek has proven that he still has a severe gender identity disorder. Although female hormones have helped somewhat, he continues to suffer intense mental anguish because of his sincere and enduring belief that he is a female trapped in a male body," Wolf wrote, citing the U.S. Constitution's Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishments.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Who would be paying the doctors for the operation? "The Massachusetts Department of Correction."

Do the doctors have an incentive to urge that the surgery is necessary?

Symmetry wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Who would be paying the doctors for the operation? "The Massachusetts Department of Correction."

Do the doctors have an incentive to urge that the surgery is necessary?

Not really, the doctors diagnosing the problem would not be paid for the surgery, surely?

Wolf said senior corrections officials engaged in patterns of "pretense, pretext and prevarication" to deny Kosilek the treatment he was entitled to and which had been recommended by department medical staff.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Who would be paying the doctors for the operation? "The Massachusetts Department of Correction."

Do the doctors have an incentive to urge that the surgery is necessary?

Not really, the doctors diagnosing the problem would not be paid for the surgery, surely?

I'm not sure, but their service rendered would justify their current salary--assuming they aren't paid per surgery.

Wolf said senior corrections officials engaged in patterns of "pretense, pretext and prevarication" to deny Kosilek the treatment he was entitled to and which had been recommended by department medical staff.

Doesn't that sound like a conflict of interests to you?

Let's ask TGD!

Wolf noted that the corrections department had fired a doctor who recommended that Kosilek receive the surgery and had hired a social worker who was known to consistently recommend that inmates did not have the procedure.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Oooh, conflicts of interest all around!

Symmetry wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Oooh, conflicts of interest all around!

I'm still not getting the conflict of interest in recommending a surgery.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Oooh, conflicts of interest all around!

I'm still not getting the conflict of interest in recommending a surgery.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=177873&view=unread#p3886077

Symmetry wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Oooh, conflicts of interest all around!

I'm still not getting the conflict of interest in recommending a surgery.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=177873&view=unread#p3886077

Quoting yourself? Sign of a diseased mind. Why would the doctors involved be paid for a surgical procedure not performed by them at an as yet undecided hospital?

Where's the conflict of interest?

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Oooh, conflicts of interest all around!

I'm still not getting the conflict of interest in recommending a surgery.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=177873&view=unread#p3886077

Quoting yourself? Sign of a diseased mind. Why would the doctors involved be paid for a surgical procedure not performed by them at an as yet undecided hospital?

Where's the conflict of interest?

Judging from the abortion thread I created, you seem to have a significant problem with reading other people's words. Maybe you could try rereading my post in that link again?

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Who would be paying the doctors for the operation? "The Massachusetts Department of Correction."

Do the doctors have an incentive to urge that the surgery is necessary?

Not really, the doctors diagnosing the problem would not be paid for the surgery, surely?

I'm not sure, but their service rendered would justify their current salary--assuming they aren't paid per surgery.

Wolf said senior corrections officials engaged in patterns of "pretense, pretext and prevarication" to deny Kosilek the treatment he was entitled to and which had been recommended by department medical staff.

Doesn't that sound like a conflict of interests to you?

Let's ask TGD!

Symmetry wrote:Why wouldn't it be? It's unusual, sure, but the ruling was pretty explicit, and it's pretty much a standard procedure for the condition his doctors diagnosed him with.

Symmetry wrote:Being a murderer requires punishment, but denying her medical treatment prescribed by doctors treating her ain't one of them, however uncommon.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Who would be paying the doctors for the operation? "The Massachusetts Department of Correction."

Do the doctors have an incentive to urge that the surgery is necessary?

jimboston wrote:(Reuters) - A federal judge has ordered Massachusetts officials to pay for a convicted murderer's sex change operation, ruling that the state had violated the inmate's constitutional rights in denying the procedure.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/ ... V820120905

How frickin' ridiculous is this?

Please don't bother trying to tell me it's a justified medical expense. It will just prove to me that you are more idiotic than this judge.

Honestly... how is this possible? Why are we not frickin' outraged?

jimboston wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Why wouldn't it be? It's unusual, sure, but the ruling was pretty explicit, and it's pretty much a standard procedure for the condition his doctors diagnosed him with.

It's a faux "condition". You're born a man... you're a man. Just because the fuckin' demons in your head tell you that you should have been born a woman... doesn't make it so!

Symmetry wrote:Being a murderer requires punishment, but denying her medical treatment prescribed by doctors treating her ain't one of them, however uncommon.

1) He just should be killed. That way we don't have to have this debate.

2) He is a he... not a she. Even if doctors cut off his weenie, pump him full of estrogen, and use plastic surgery to put some poor facsimile of a "coochie" between his legs... THAT WON'T MAKE HIM A WOMAN.

Did you really vote for option 2?

natty dread wrote:Why should you be outraged?

natty dread wrote:It's a legitimate procedure. Sexual dysphoria is a disease...

natty dread wrote:

jimboston wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Why wouldn't it be? It's unusual, sure, but the ruling was pretty explicit, and it's pretty much a standard procedure for the condition his doctors diagnosed him with.

It's a faux "condition". You're born a man... you're a man. Just because the fuckin' demons in your head tell you that you should have been born a woman... doesn't make it so!

Symmetry wrote:Being a murderer requires punishment, but denying her medical treatment prescribed by doctors treating her ain't one of them, however uncommon.

1) He just should be killed. That way we don't have to have this debate.

2) He is a he... not a she. Even if doctors cut off his weenie, pump him full of estrogen, and use plastic surgery to put some poor facsimile of a "coochie" between his legs... THAT WON'T MAKE HIM A WOMAN.

Did you really vote for option 2?

Not sure if trolling or just stupid.

jimboston wrote:(Reuters) - A federal judge has ordered Massachusetts officials to pay for a convicted murderer's sex change operation, ruling that the state had violated the inmate's constitutional rights in denying the procedure.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/ ... V820120905

How frickin' ridiculous is this?

Please don't bother trying to tell me it's a justified medical expense. It will just prove to me that you are more idiotic than this judge.

Honestly... how is this possible? Why are we not frickin' outraged?

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Who would be paying the doctors for the operation? "The Massachusetts Department of Correction."

Do the doctors have an incentive to urge that the surgery is necessary?

Not really, the doctors diagnosing the problem would not be paid for the surgery, surely?

I'm not sure, but their service rendered would justify their current salary--assuming they aren't paid per surgery.

Wolf said senior corrections officials engaged in patterns of "pretense, pretext and prevarication" to deny Kosilek the treatment he was entitled to and which had been recommended by department medical staff.

Doesn't that sound like a conflict of interests to you?

Let's ask TGD!