Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

[jimboston]

(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?

[Woodruff]

(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?

It seems to me that while someone is incarcerated, their basic necessities should be taken care of, which of course includes medical care. But this isn't. I mean...diagnosed with cancer, take care of the cancer treatment, of course. So yeah...bad decision, in my view.

[jonesthecurl]

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]

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.

[jimboston]

Interesting that there are not more comments.

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

[Symmetry]

Interesting that there are not more comments.

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

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.

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.

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

[BigBallinStalin]

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]

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?

[BigBallinStalin]

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]

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.

Would seem to indicate that doctors recommending the treatment faced dismissal, rather than any kind of personal profit.

What would be the conflict of interest?

[BigBallinStalin]

Oooh, conflicts of interest all around!

[Symmetry]

Oooh, conflicts of interest all around!

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

[BigBallinStalin]

Oooh, conflicts of interest all around!

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

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... d#p3886077

[Symmetry]

Oooh, conflicts of interest all around!

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

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... d#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]

Oooh, conflicts of interest all around!

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

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... d#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?

[Symmetry]

Oooh, conflicts of interest all around!

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

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... d#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.

[kentington]

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.

[jimboston]

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!

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?

[jimboston]

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!

[natty dread]

(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"?

[natty dread]

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!

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]

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.

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?

[jimboston]

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!

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???

[PLAYER57832]

(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)

[thegreekdog]

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.