Attorney joins Va inmate's appeal for sex change

I don't agree with this. They refuse to help the transgendered who obey the law, it's not right to give an inmate preferential treatment over the ones who obey the law. Of course my stance may change if I knew what the crime was, but until then this is my stance.

Glasberg argues a medical professional should evaluate De'Lonta and decide whether the surgery is appropriate.

This is the correct way to determine if the procedure is "really" necessary. Who will pay for the professional evaluation?

Jorja wrote:

Glasberg argues a medical professional should evaluate De'Lonta and decide whether the surgery is appropriate.
This is the correct way to determine if the procedure is "really" necessary. Who will pay for the professional evaluation?

All such surgeries are really necessary, that's not the point. The fact is that no one else gets such a free ride and an inmate should NEVER, under any circumstances, have better rights or access to health care than anyone who obeys the law. If they do allow this, then that state should pay for every transgendered person's surgery, period.

Not a problem, get some whiskey and hack there junk off, kinda like giving a prison tatoo

torch wrote:

Not a problem, get some whiskey and hack there junk off, kinda like giving a prison tatoo

OUCH!

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
All such surgeries are really necessary, that's not the point. The fact is that no one else gets such a free ride and an inmate should NEVER, under any circumstances, have better rights or access to health care than anyone who obeys the law. If they do allow this, then that state should pay for every transgendered person's surgery, period.

I disagree that the surgeries are "necessary." It's a preference-not always necessary.
Inmates get free rides ALL the time-they all have access to medical care-which is a luxury many people can't afford. Free medical care-free education-laundry service-free cable service-free computers-free meals (there are people who don't know where their next meal is coming from)inmates DO get the freebies all the time.

I have always advocated using inmates (with their permission of course) as training for Drs. If they want the SRS, let them be practice patients for new Drs learning the art. Naturally, they'd have to be overseen by an experienced Dr to make sure the operation goes well. This would limit the State's liability in cases where there may be problems. In NJ, there are no SRS's being performed because of the hospital's reluctance to allow them. I know of one surgeon who is able, ready, and willing. So there he sits, his skills and training going stale for lack of a place to use them. It seems such a shame.
Regards, Terri

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
All such surgeries are really necessary, that's not the point. The fact is that no one else gets such a free ride and an inmate should NEVER, under any circumstances, have better rights or access to health care than anyone who obeys the law. If they do allow this, then that state should pay for every transgendered person's surgery, period.

I don't know how many times I've repeated this, or how many times I'll have to, but THEY DON"T CUT ANYTHING OFF! It is inverted to create a vagina. That's why the surgeries take 4-5 hours! And lets stop the crude jokes and "Remedies" about it. This is a very serious problem to the people who suffer with it.
Regard's Terri

torch wrote:

Not a problem, get some whiskey and hack there junk off, kinda like giving a prison tatoo

TerryE wrote:

I have always advocated using inmates (with their permission of course) as training for Drs. If they want the SRS, let them be practice patients for new Drs learning the art. Naturally, they'd have to be overseen by an experienced Dr to make sure the operation goes well. This would limit the State's liability in cases where there may be problems. In NJ, there are no SRS's being performed because of the hospital's reluctance to allow them. I know of one surgeon who is able, ready, and willing. So there he sits, his skills and training going stale for lack of a place to use them. It seems such a shame.
Regards, Terri
<quoted text>

But again, if they give it to an inmate paid for by the state, the state should offer the same value worth to everyone else. A criminal may be innocent, but most often not, except in Texas. So a person who does not want to obey the law should not be given better treatment than those who do obey the law for any reason.

KittenKoder, what you are advocating for is universal, government provided health care. I agree with you on that.

Until that happens, however, I think that necessary medical treatments should never be denied to someone in prison. To do so, in this case, is to harmfully discriminate against trans people. Once we start saying we can deny required medical treatment from one group of prisoners then we can start doing the same with others. I feel that denying medical treatment for anyone in prison is a violation of the eighth amendment to the constitution. it's cruel and unusual punishment.

Hang them both!!!, get rid of the plagues to society

Citizens who obey the law cannot afford this surgery I do NOT agree that a criminal should get this surgery on OUR dime!!!

Emelye, I don't agree with that! I am against so called "free" medical care for all.
Regards, Terri

Emelye Waldherr wrote:

KittenKoder, what you are advocating for is universal, government provided health care. I agree with you on that.
Until that happens, however, I think that necessary medical treatments should never be denied to someone in prison. To do so, in this case, is to harmfully discriminate against trans people. Once we start saying we can deny required medical treatment from one group of prisoners then we can start doing the same with others. I feel that denying medical treatment for anyone in prison is a violation of the eighth amendment to the constitution. it's cruel and unusual punishment.

TerryE wrote:

I don't know how many times I've repeated this, or how many times I'll have to, but THEY DON"T CUT ANYTHING OFF! It is inverted to create a vagina. That's why the surgeries take 4-5 hours! And lets stop the crude jokes and "Remedies" about it. This is a very serious problem to the people who suffer with it.
Regard's Terri
<quoted text>

Mental problem you mean, you want a vagina. Ok cut there junk off and leave the rest open, it might heal it might not who cares

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
But again, if they give it to an inmate paid for by the state, the state should offer the same value worth to everyone else. A criminal may be innocent, but most often not, except in Texas. So a person who does not want to obey the law should not be given better treatment than those who do obey the law for any reason.

""But again, if they give it to an inmate paid for by the state, the state should offer the same value worth to everyone else.""

Following that logic - you want ALL to receive the same freebies that inmates receive - sounds like a government health care plan to me.
Inmates get freebies that some people can only dream about.

Yes! if there were no differences in quality of services. In the UK, folks using the NHS (Natl. Health Service) get one level of service and the folks using private Insurance get another. Now I ask you, which do you think is better? And they want a single payer system for the US. HAH! All I can think of is Sarah Palin's "Death Panels"!
"They spent theirs and now they want mine!"
Regards, Terri

Jorja wrote:

<quoted text>
""But again, if they give it to an inmate paid for by the state, the state should offer the same value worth to everyone else.""
Following that logic - you want ALL to receive the same freebies that inmates receive - sounds like a government health care plan to me.
Inmates get freebies that some people can only dream about.

Emelye Waldherr wrote:

KittenKoder, what you are advocating for is universal, government provided health care. I agree with you on that.
Until that happens, however, I think that necessary medical treatments should never be denied to someone in prison. To do so, in this case, is to harmfully discriminate against trans people. Once we start saying we can deny required medical treatment from one group of prisoners then we can start doing the same with others. I feel that denying medical treatment for anyone in prison is a violation of the eighth amendment to the constitution. it's cruel and unusual punishment.

I honestly don't care who covers healthcare, however, the problem is that the government will still maintain control of it, the way Obama's bill is worded, and thus when some politician gets it up their hairy ass that they "know what's best" they will change what's covered and what isn't. All healthcare decision should be in the hands of the patient, and also all effects and repercussions should also be the patient's responsibility, except in cases of emergencies.

There are a few more problems with the US method of "universal coverage" but I won't get into the details on those. My main concern is giving politicians control over the coverage, when imagine if Rick got into office with that kind of power. Either Rick.

TerryE wrote:

Yes! if there were no differences in quality of services. In the UK, folks using the NHS (Natl. Health Service) get one level of service and the folks using private Insurance get another. Now I ask you, which do you think is better? And they want a single payer system for the US. HAH! All I can think of is Sarah Palin's "Death Panels"!
"They spent theirs and now they want mine!"
Regards, Terri
<quoted text>

First let me say I think Sarah Palin is an idiot.
There will always be differences in the quality of service a person receives - whether it be medical care or the local grocery store.
I have no idea if a single payer system will work or not - the US hasn't tried it in the medical coverage area yet - medicare is a horse of a different color - lots and lots of fraud there - if we do go the single payer road they will need lots & lots of folks double checking every single line of a bill. I understand what Obama wants & is trying to do but not sure it can work without tons & tons of eyes watching everything.
I personally don't have a clue how to solve this problem but I do know insurance companies are far to big for their britches - they don't give a damn about patient care - only money.

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
I honestly don't care who covers healthcare, however, the problem is that the government will still maintain control of it, the way Obama's bill is worded, and thus when some politician gets it up their hairy ass that they "know what's best" they will change what's covered and what isn't. All healthcare decision should be in the hands of the patient, and also all effects and repercussions should also be the patient's responsibility, except in cases of emergencies.
There are a few more problems with the US method of "universal coverage" but I won't get into the details on those. My main concern is giving politicians control over the coverage, when imagine if Rick got into office with that kind of power. Either Rick.

Whether it's the government or the insurance companies being in charge - patients lose. There should be no such thing as "denied" necessary medical care and I don't give a damn who denies it - it is wrong!

The very thought of Rick being in charge makes my uterus shudder and my vagina scream!

Jorja wrote:

<quoted text>
Whether it's the government or the insurance companies being in charge - patients lose. There should be no such thing as "denied" necessary medical care and I don't give a damn who denies it - it is wrong!
The very thought of Rick being in charge makes my uterus shudder and my vagina scream!

I do not disagree with that. But with insurance companies, multiple choices, you have a better chance of getting the pull for what you want and need, with the government it will be one plan for everyone and whoever is in charge will be deciding what that plan is.

Remember, in spite of there being a well intended president, there is a mostly religious nutjob congress and house of reps.