Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, unfortunately for you, your "beliefs" regarding what constitutes a "serious medical condition" don't count. All the information about which doctors evaluated this situation, and who testified, as well as the length of time involved in this situation, is all out there to anyone to read. Why do I have to babysit you guys who refuse to research before you make ridiculous statements/
A "serious medical condition" is a legal term and there are standards which must be proven in order to meet the requirements of a "serious medical condition." By the way, doctors don't "rule" on anything in court. The Judge makes the rulings, based on evidence presented. Geeezzzz. If you don't understand how the courts work, how in the world do you possibly think you can understand Constitutional Amendments, or for that matter, the Constitution. No, the doctors who are going to do this procedure surely were not the doctors who testified; that would be a conflict of interest. Some of the doctors who testified were, in fact, prison doctors; those are the people who are not easily fooled on the behalf of the inmates.
So according to your logic and the logic of the ruling, if I am a convicted killer serving time or life, and I am suffering psychologically from being bald, and I think that I will live in less pain if I have a full head of hair, I can demand the legal right to have a full hair transplant and ongoing treatment around that at the taxpayers' expense....or if I have a crooked toe or too-small boobs, etc etc...
So according to your logic and the logic of the ruling, if I am a convicted killer serving time or life, and I am suffering psychologically from being bald, and I think that I will live in less pain if I have a full head of hair, I can demand the legal right to have a full hair transplant and ongoing treatment around that at the taxpayers' expense....or if I have a crooked toe or too-small boobs, etc etc...
No, that's not correct. And it's not "my logic." It's about the application of the 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. These are legal issues. It would be helpful if you read some of the previous posts regarding WHY in THIS particular case, the medical procedure is being allowed.
Well you just argued FOR the guy. And you don't know that he's getting reparations as well ?
$500K of more taxpayer money.
Please! I did not argue FOR the guy. I tried to explain to those who seem hell bent on NOT understanding the legal issues regarding this case. You just try to twist everything all around, so it's difficult to try to be straight with you. You asked a simple question, I told you I didn't know about the costs being awarded to the inmate, then you try to make it look like I'm arguing for this individual on ALL ISSUES. I'm not. I don't know why the Court awarded costs to this inmate. That is a different legal issue. Why don't you geniuses try to figure that one out since you want so much to bash this federal judge, a Republican Appointee, I might add. Do a little work on your own for a change. You want to know the answer to the question, look it up.
Please! I did not argue FOR the guy. I tried to explain to those who seem hell bent on NOT understanding the legal issues regarding this case. You just try to twist everything all around, so it's difficult to try to be straight with you. You asked a simple question, I told you I didn't know about the costs being awarded to the inmate, then you try to make it look like I'm arguing for this individual on ALL ISSUES. I'm not. I don't know why the Court awarded costs to this inmate. That is a different legal issue. Why don't you geniuses try to figure that one out since you want so much to bash this federal judge, a Republican Appointee, I might add. Do a little work on your own for a change. You want to know the answer to the question, look it up.
So here's "serious medical need":
What is a serious medical need? The Eighth Amendment prohibits the "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain."9 Some factors courts have considered in determining whether a "serious medical need" is at issue are “(1) whether a reasonable doctor or patient would perceive the medical need in question as important and worthy of comment or treatment; (2) whether the medical condition significantly affects daily activities; and (3) the existence of chronic and substantial pain.”10 Additionally, courts will be likely to find a "serious medical need" if a condition "has been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or ... is so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity of a doctor’s attention.”11
A serious medical need is present whenever the failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.”12 Significant injury, pain or loss of function can constitute "serious medical needs" even if they are not life-threatening.13 Pain can constitute a "serious medical need" even if the failure to treat it does not make the condition worse.14 At least one court has held that pregnancy, at least in its later stages, constitutes a serious medical need.15
I stand by my hypotheticals, above (post #101). If "medical need" extends to the huge spectrum of "psychological need" in the prison system, taxpayers are really in for it after this precedent. I can just hear the rattling of the cages and the banging of the tin cups, for sex change, bigger boobs, more hair, special foods, you name it. This could start a revolution. Who has to pay?
So according to your logic and the logic of the ruling, if I am a convicted killer serving time or life, and I am suffering psychologically from being bald, and I think that I will live in less pain if I have a full head of hair, I can demand the legal right to have a full hair transplant and ongoing treatment around that at the taxpayers' expense....or if I have a crooked toe or too-small boobs, etc etc...
Would that be considered "cruel and unusual punishment" ?
What is a serious medical need? The Eighth Amendment prohibits the "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain."9 Some factors courts have considered in determining whether a "serious medical need" is at issue are “(1) whether a reasonable doctor or patient would perceive the medical need in question as important and worthy of comment or treatment; (2) whether the medical condition significantly affects daily activities; and (3) the existence of chronic and substantial pain.â€10 Additionally, courts will be likely to find a "serious medical need" if a condition "has been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or ... is so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity of a doctor’s attention.â€11
A serious medical need is present whenever the failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.â€12 Significant injury, pain or loss of function can constitute "serious medical needs" even if they are not life-threatening.13 Pain can constitute a "serious medical need" even if the failure to treat it does not make the condition worse.14 At least one court has held that pregnancy, at least in its later stages, constitutes a serious medical need.15
I stand by my hypotheticals, above (post #101). If "medical need" extends to the huge spectrum of "psychological need" in the prison system, taxpayers are really in for it after this precedent. I can just hear the rattling of the cages and the banging of the tin cups, for sex change, bigger boobs, more hair, special foods, you name it. This could start a revolution. Who has to pay?
Obviously, you're clueless about how the court system works. This is not a huge "precedent." You really should read the documents available in this thread and online regarding THIS particular case. It would prove to be very insightful for you. Good luck getting impartial doctors, medical experts, to support your claim for a boob job, etc. Trying to expand the particulars of this case out to indicate that this will lead to a "revolution" in the prison system is just naive. For your scenario to work, there would have to be a country full of doctors willing to perjure themselves on behalf of these inmates.....and even that wouldn't work. Stick to your misguided belief all you want. You will not see your scenario come to pass.
Would that be considered "cruel and unusual punishment" ?
The Courts decid what is cruel and unusual punishment. In fact, the use of the electric chair in this country changed to lethal injection because it was becoming increasingly clear that electrocution was indeed cruel and unusual punishment.
Obviously, you're clueless about how the court system works. This is not a huge "precedent." You really should read the documents available in this thread and online regarding THIS particular case. It would prove to be very insightful for you. Good luck getting impartial doctors, medical experts, to support your claim for a boob job, etc. Trying to expand the particulars of this case out to indicate that this will lead to a "revolution" in the prison system is just naive. For your scenario to work, there would have to be a country full of doctors willing to perjure themselves on behalf of these inmates.....and even that wouldn't work. Stick to your misguided belief all you want. You will not see your scenario come to pass.
I am not trying to be sassy here. Just trying to get a real handle on what seems to be out in left field (but nothing surprises me in Mass.). I've looked through the literature and find nothing compelling about this case. What did you read that I obviously missed? Quote the ruling?
Obviously, you're clueless about how the court system works. This is not a huge "precedent." Stick to your misguided belief all you want. You will not see your scenario come to pass.
Try to enlighten rather than insult. A sex change paid for by the taxpayers is a precedent, unless it just never made the news before.
The Courts decid what is cruel and unusual punishment. In fact, the use of the electric chair in this country changed to lethal injection because it was becoming increasingly clear that electrocution was indeed cruel and unusual punishment.
What are they now calling the act of murder when it applies to what the convicted to do another human being? Are they coming up with something other than "cruel and unusual punishment"?
The Courts can decide whatever they want, interpret law how they see fit, I am not arguing their job description. So I agree with you there. What we are arguing is not what their right is in their supreme roles, but what is right.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, the doctors who are going to do this procedure surely were not the doctors who testified; that would be a conflict of interest. Some of the doctors who testified were, in fact, prison doctors; those are the people who are not easily fooled on the behalf of the inmates.
And it's not "my logic." It's about the application of the 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. These are legal issues. It would be helpful if you read some of the previous posts regarding WHY in THIS particular case, the medical procedure is being allowed.
