Conquer Club

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?

I don't, but yes, that was a mistake. Sorry, perhaps I should be less cynical toward you. And yes, read more carefully from time to time.

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!

This seems to be a common thing in the work place right now. I have seen this with city engineers near my work, they designed (or copied from another city) a new traffic light system that is annoying and has cause a lot of accidents and almost accidents.

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?

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?

Follow the money!

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?

Why should you be outraged? It's a legitimate procedure. Sexual dysphoria is a disease which requires treatment, which can be a sex-change operation.

What's ridiculous about it? Do you perhaps think that there are people who go to sex change operations "just for laughs"?

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.

natty dread wrote:Why should you be outraged?

I am outraged because I am paying for it as a taxpayer in Massachusetts.

I am annoyed whenever I have to pay for someone else's medical care... but I understand (a bit) when it's a poor person or even someone incarcerated. I understand they need legitimate medical treatment and can't get it on their own. It annoys me... but I understand.

I am outrage when I have to pay for things that ARE NOT LEGITIMATE.

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

It's NOT A DISEASE...and It's NOT a LEGITIMATE procedure.

Just because some doctor(s) states that this person's weirdness is a disease does not make it so. Putting this problem on par with real medical issue delegitimizes the whole profession.

.. furthermore, the procedures does not fix or cure anything. The person with this issue is going to be fucked up in the head both before and after the "fix"... so why bother?

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.

How is this trolling???

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?

NPR had a brief piece on it. I thought it outrageous when they described it as well. I did find the whole argument a tad interesting, but not in the "agree with" sense, more in the "well, that is in interesting argument".

The attorney who represented this guy get kudos, I suppose, for presenting a winning argument. (that IS his job.. whether I agree with the outcome or not)

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!

I don't believe this is a legal conflict of interest. It may be a conflict of interest generally (and I think it is).

However, I understand that doctors are not professionally permitted to recommend unnecessary surgeries. So perhaps this was necessary.

Here are a couple of NPR stories.. just because they provides more information.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =160585599

http://www.npr.org/2012/09/06/160654718 ... ery-ruling

There was a lot of negative commentary about this later.

thegreekdog wrote:
I don't believe this is a legal conflict of interest. It may be a conflict of interest generally (and I think it is).

However, I understand that doctors are not professionally permitted to recommend unnecessary surgeries. So perhaps this was necessary.

Yes... it was necessary in their deluded minds.

Just because some "professionals" convince themselves that this is reasonable... that does NOT make it so.

natty dread wrote:

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?

Why should you be outraged? It's a legitimate procedure. Sexual dysphoria is a disease which requires treatment, which can be a sex-change operation.

What's ridiculous about it? Do you perhaps think that there are people who go to sex change operations "just for laughs"?

As much as I do think even killers should get reasonable medical treatment, to say that this convicted murderer has the "right" to an operation that might make him feel better about himself, but that is not necessary to save his life or to provide for the general safety of the population is just ridiculous.

Its particularly outrageous when you recognize that many other prisoners, some not even convicted yet (just being held for trial and therefore supposed to be considered innocent), and fully innocent kids are not getting care THEY need.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Here are a couple of NPR stories.. just because they provides more information.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =160585599

http://www.npr.org/2012/09/06/160654718 ... ery-ruling

There was a lot of negative commentary about this later.

Here's one comment from that forum that I liked.

(Even though the person leans to the left, the commentator obviously still has a brain.)

OK, I usually fall on the liberal side of the spectrum, but I'm feeling fuddy duddy conservative on this one. I am not against transgender people. I understand it is an inclination they cannot help. However, if it was so important to this woman, why didn't she have an operation before she landed in the Big House? She is IN JAIL. For MURDER. My tax dollars should not pay for her journey to self awareness. If she is having a heart attack or her leg is cut off, OK. But she is not in prison to be comfortable and have all her dreams fufilled. Transgender operations are NOT basic health care.

I would (of course) substitute all the female pronouns for male pronouns.. and substitute "woman" for "man" or perhaps "fucked up crazy person".

thegreekdog wrote:However, I understand that doctors are not professionally permitted to recommend unnecessary surgeries. So perhaps this was necessary.

Breast reduction surgary, nose jobs, scar removals are also medically warranted. That doesn't mean they are so necessary that tax payers should provide them for prisoners.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:However, I understand that doctors are not professionally permitted to recommend unnecessary surgeries. So perhaps this was necessary.

Breast reduction surgary, nose jobs, scar removals are also medically warranted. That doesn't mean they are so necessary that tax payers should provide them for prisoners.

I SAY AMEN!

PLAYER SPEAKS THE TRUTH.

I KNEW YOU WERE A SMART WOMAN PLAYER!

Also... I DEMAND that those people who voted for Option 2 identify themselves forthwith.

Honestly... how can anyone vote for that option.

I may need to change the wording their (again).

jimboston wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Here are a couple of NPR stories.. just because they provides more information.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =160585599

http://www.npr.org/2012/09/06/160654718 ... ery-ruling

There was a lot of negative commentary about this later.

Here's one comment from that forum that I liked.

(Even though the person leans to the left, the commentator obviously still has a brain.)

OK, I usually fall on the liberal side of the spectrum, but I'm feeling fuddy duddy conservative on this one. I am not against transgender people. I understand it is an inclination they cannot help. However, if it was so important to this woman, why didn't she have an operation before she landed in the Big House? She is IN JAIL. For MURDER. My tax dollars should not pay for her journey to self awareness. If she is having a heart attack or her leg is cut off, OK. But she is not in prison to be comfortable and have all her dreams fufilled. Transgender operations are NOT basic health care.

Yes, I agree as well. I would be against ANY public funding for this.. simply as a matter of "triage". If we had enough money and medical resources to provide everyone else what they NEED first, then.. maybe (but only maybe) it would be reasonable to consider paying for this for people who are not convicted of crimes. (not even tackling the is the surgary justified ever issue.. just not getting into that in this thread at all)

However, that doesn't happen. To provide criminals that which tax-paying and working citizens cannot get is just wrong.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:However, I understand that doctors are not professionally permitted to recommend unnecessary surgeries. So perhaps this was necessary.

Breast reduction surgary, nose jobs, scar removals are also medically warranted. That doesn't mean they are so necessary that tax payers should provide them for prisoners.

The underlined is where I'm falling on this sex-change operation.

I don't deny that such an operation may be necessary or is a disease, but I balk at the taxpaying argument.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

jimboston wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Here are a couple of NPR stories.. just because they provides more information.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =160585599

http://www.npr.org/2012/09/06/160654718 ... ery-ruling

There was a lot of negative commentary about this later.

Here's one comment from that forum that I liked.

(Even though the person leans to the left, the commentator obviously still has a brain.)

OK, I usually fall on the liberal side of the spectrum, but I'm feeling fuddy duddy conservative on this one. I am not against transgender people. I understand it is an inclination they cannot help. However, if it was so important to this woman, why didn't she have an operation before she landed in the Big House? She is IN JAIL. For MURDER. My tax dollars should not pay for her journey to self awareness. If she is having a heart attack or her leg is cut off, OK. But she is not in prison to be comfortable and have all her dreams fufilled. Transgender operations are NOT basic health care.

Yes, I agree as well. I would be against ANY public funding for this.. simply as a matter of "triage". If we had enough money and medical resources to provide everyone else what they NEED first, then.. maybe (but only maybe) it would be reasonable to consider paying for this for people who are not convicted of crimes. (not even tackling the is the surgary justified ever issue.. just not getting into that in this thread at all)

However, that doesn't happen. To provide criminals that which tax-paying and working citizens cannot get is just wrong.

The Farmerist critique of this would be to say that the money exists to pay for these things, but we simply refuse to provide it. The injustice isn't that she got medical help doctors felt she needed while others go without, the injustice is that others go without.

spurgistan wrote:
The Farmerist critique of this would be to say that the money exists to pay for these things, but we simply refuse to provide it. The injustice isn't that she got medical help doctors felt she needed while others go without, the injustice is that others go without.

This is a true argument, but rather irrelevant, because we live in the real world. In the real world there just is neither funding nor resources to serve everyone right now.

That is why I referred specifically to "triage". Also, I do have a fundamental issue with paying for non-necessary things for convicted murderers. I realize there is a slippery slope there, but this definitely seems to have crossed over the ridge onto the other side.

jimboston wrote:

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...

LOL

Depending on the crimes yes!

but not...
1) if the offender WANTS that.
2) if we have to "reconstruct" things down there after.

hMM. what if a criminal WANTS to be locked up? Or Executed?

jonesthecurl wrote:

jimboston wrote:

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...

LOL

Depending on the crimes yes!

but not...
1) if the offender WANTS that.
2) if we have to "reconstruct" things down there after.

hMM. what if a criminal WANTS to be locked up? Or Executed?

There is an abundance of case law and real cases on that.

The one I remember most is the guy who asked to be executed in Utah. If I remember correctly, he was a Mormon, and had the belief that the only way to be forgiven for murder was if someone else killed him. (or some such)

There is also, of course, the folks who rob or such so they can be returned to prison.

Hmm... though if you want something interesting, albiet a tad off topic, look into the "suicide by proxy" bit. In the Middle Ages, this really happened. People would kill someone (innocent). That person, being innocent would go to heaven, the killer would have time to confess to a priest, and therefore be forgiven. Enough twisted minds saw this as logical that the church had to make specific proclomations and new laws were instituted.

spurgistan wrote:
The Farmerist critique of this would be to say that the money exists to pay for these things, but we simply refuse to provide it. The injustice isn't that she got medical help doctors felt she needed while others go without, the injustice is that others go without.

1) He NOT She!

2) The injustice is that I have to pay for this faux treatment.

jonesthecurl wrote:

jimboston wrote:

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...

LOL

Depending on the crimes yes!

but not...
1) if the offender WANTS that.
2) if we have to "reconstruct" things down there after.

hMM. what if a criminal WANTS to be locked up? Or Executed?

I THAT case I would oblige the Offender!