Bradley Manning

[CrAz3D]

Not talkin about the traitor stuff...talkin about the sex stuff.

So he wants to be a woman. (become a woman? is a woman? I dunno how to properly say it, so fuck it). Anyhow, he is in military prison and want hormone therapy.

Discussion:
One hand: For good mental health, it's probably legit to give this guy therapy (talking + drugs).
Other hand: Why should the govt ever pay for nonmedically necessary surgeries (I'm talkin _necessary_ like bypass, cancer treatment, etc).
Third hand: As an offshoot discussion, what about lifers/deathrow people? Why pay for anything?

I recognize why (cause city on a hill, Christian, right, morals, etc), but it kinda seems like a waste with regard to lifers/deathrow. Why spend money, time, effort on someone that has no ability to contribute to society (and in fact has already harmed society to such a degree we said "fuck you, guy" and sent him away)? Would those resources not be better spent helping poor kids?


hmm.....morals and shit

[Sidoh]

Not talkin about the traitor stuff...talkin about the sex stuff.

So he wants to be a woman. (become a woman? is a woman? I dunno how to properly say it, so fuck it). Anyhow, he is in military prison and want hormone therapy.

Discussion:
One hand: For good mental health, it's probably legit to give this guy therapy (talking + drugs).
Other hand: Why should the govt ever pay for nonmedically necessary surgeries (I'm talkin _necessary_ like bypass, cancer treatment, etc).
Third hand: As an offshoot discussion, what about lifers/deathrow people? Why pay for anything?

I recognize why (cause city on a hill, Christian, right, morals, etc), but it kinda seems like a waste with regard to lifers/deathrow. Why spend money, time, effort on someone that has no ability to contribute to society (and in fact has already harmed society to such a degree we said "fuck you, guy" and sent him away)? Would those resources not be better spent helping poor kids?


hmm.....morals and shit

From a friend on facebook:

Bradley Manning can think he's a woman all he wants, but he'll be reminded of the truth every time he leaks... *buh-bum-tss* 

Anyway, to the degree that you think it moral to provide distressed prisoners with therapy, I think one should be okay with this (granted he's not just doing this for attention).

[while1]

This is a difficult question, exacerbated by the fact I don't believe she should be locked away for 35 years, however if I were to disregard the crime and reasons why she's in prison and just go by the 35-year sentence... I'd say giving her therapy is the right thing to do morally speaking.  Economically, it's not.

For me, what I'd hate the most about prison is the lack of freedom.  I'd rather commit suicide than be imprisoned for 35 years of my life.  If the point of a 35-year sentence is to have them live out their sentence, then mental health is important and if she indeed feels like she was born a woman trapped in a man's body, then I can only imagine feeling even more depressed and mentally unstable when compounded with another layer of imprisonment.

Now, I do not believe that gender reassignment surgery should be covered.

[Rule]

Not sure if sex changes should be covered in general.  I suppose sex changes could, in exceptional cases, be argued absolutely critical to mental well-being, in which case I would tentatively be in favour of having the operation covered in those cases only.  In general, I think elective procedures should not be covered in a social healthcare system.

[while1]

Not sure if sex changes should be covered in general.  I suppose sex changes could, in exceptional cases, be argued absolutely critical to mental well-being, in which case I would tentatively be in favour of having the operation covered in those cases only.  In general, I think elective procedures should not be covered in a social healthcare system.

It is my limited understanding that a MtF sex change where the testes are removed, would require a dependency on hormone therapy (i.e. estrogen, progesterone, testosterone, etc.) for the rest of their lives because it would result in a significant imbalance in hormones.  They would not be able to naturally produce enough estrogen and testosterone since both males and females naturally produce both, just differs in amount... So something like a male menopause would occur.

I agree with the elective point of view.  To me, a sex change could result in far too many possible complications for an elective operation, and should not to be covered.

Whereas just hormone therapy is much more reversible and less risky.  It'd be different if Manning already had a sex change before all of this WL stuff.

[CrAz3D]

I make a black-and-white distinction between people that will reenter society and people that are not going to see freedom ever again.

Those that will be released, I agree, should be rehab'd and kept mentally stable. I'm not saying give them a fancy education or the best shrinks around, but just enough that they don't fall back into the shit that made us lock them up in the first place. A decent trade and average-at-best psychologists should do it.

Those in for life/on death row...I kinda don't understand, from an economic and, to an extent, moral viewpoint, why we care about them. They're too bad to be in society (and usually too bad to be in gen pop), so they're in solitary indefinitely. That shit messes people up, but there isn't really an alternative. Killing them all might be the kindest and least cruel thing to do, IMO.

*We're assuming all convictions = legit and the person isn't in for some bullshit drug kinda charge...something more like raping and killing 3 kids.



As for Manning, I wonder what the drugs will do. Hell, he has come this far in life without doing anything crazy (save for leaking super secret documents?), and I haven't read about anything violent, so he must be coping well-enough. Why waste the money on something that isn't a threat to his life?

[Sidoh]

Those in for life/on death row...I kinda don't understand, from an economic and, to an extent, moral viewpoint, why we care about them. They're too bad to be in society (and usually too bad to be in gen pop), so they're in solitary indefinitely. That shit messes people up, but there isn't really an alternative. Killing them all might be the kindest and least cruel thing to do, IMO.

I'm inclined to believe that most criminals are either victim to terrible circumstances growing up or a genetic predisposition to violent/psychopathic tendencies. While I agree that violent criminals should be put in prison for the good of the society we live in, I feel morally uncomfortable not helping them when they're distressed, depressed, etc. To that end, I feel some obligation to provide mental and physical healthcare to inmates -- even (maybe especially) when they're lifers.

When it comes down to it, I don't think that they stop being people just because they've been sentenced to life in prison.

[CrAz3D]

People are still people, yes, but I'm arguing that they are less deserving of the finite resources available. As for the "victims of society" notion, while I agree it happens, but I can't see it as a strong enough mitigating factor to not execute/imprison/whatever someone.

[Sidoh]

People are still people, yes, but I'm arguing that they are less deserving of the finite resources available. As for the "victims of society" notion, while I agree it happens, but I can't see it as a strong enough mitigating factor to not execute/imprison/whatever someone.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be imprisoned, although I would say no one should be executed under any circumstances... this was meant as an argument in favor of them being granted psychological/physical care while imprisoned. I don't think they're less deserving.

Some people are born with a tendency to be angry and violent. I don't think that they should be spared our compassion. I'm not saying they be released from prison (or even have reduced sentences). I'd rather that we think of prison as a rehabilitation facility -- or, in the worst case, a place to contain those that would make society much worse -- than a punishment.

To the point of Manning -- I'm not very well informed on trans stuff. I'm inclined to agree with what people are saying here: that maybe surgery shouldn't be covered, but hormone treatment should be.

[Blaze]

Canada/England and quite a few other European nations provide free sexual reassignment surgery (srs) to their citizens after fulfilling the required psychology requirements.  Generally these surgeries are viewed from the health care provider as necessary surgeries (as opposed to optional or cosmetic), if actually desired by the patient.  It's treated the same as any other non-emergency surgery, with the exception of the psychological assessment involved.

I believe if she wants it, she should absolutely get it, even as a prisoner.

I have a few trans* friends, and America is one of the worst countries for them to be citizens of (as far as "first-world" nations go, anyway).  None of anything is covered, with the exception of a very few choice health insurance plans on the west coast (generally universities).  It is pretty hard to manage as trans in general, and American society does not help in the least.  :/

[CrAz3D]

What makes it necessary?

To me, when I think of necessary surgery for a lifer, I'm thinkin stab wound, cancer, etc. When I think of necessary surgery for a death row I think well, just give him the shot now. Going-to-be-released prisoners should get the best treatment, but I'm not so sure about surgery for nonlifethreatening things.

I think it'd take a lot of convincing to get me/most US citizens to believe that hormones + genital surgey = absolutely necessary for Manning to stay alive.

[Rule]

What makes it necessary?

To me, when I think of necessary surgery for a lifer, I'm thinkin stab wound, cancer, etc. When I think of necessary surgery for a death row I think well, just give him the shot now. Going-to-be-released prisoners should get the best treatment, but I'm not so sure about surgery for nonlifethreatening things.

I think it'd take a lot of convincing to get me/most US citizens to believe that hormones + genital surgey = absolutely necessary for Manning to stay alive.

We're not just talking about prisoners.  We're talking about whether sex changes should be covered in general. 

Moreover, I don't know why you keep going back to death row.  Manning is not facing the death penalty.  I don't believe in the death penalty, and of course prisoners should receive necessary medical procedures prior to the penalty -- anything else would be equivalent to torture.   

[Blaze]

What makes it necessary?

To me, when I think of necessary surgery for a lifer, I'm thinkin stab wound, cancer, etc. When I think of necessary surgery for a death row I think well, just give him the shot now. Going-to-be-released prisoners should get the best treatment, but I'm not so sure about surgery for nonlifethreatening things.

I think it'd take a lot of convincing to get me/most US citizens to believe that hormones + genital surgey = absolutely necessary for Manning to stay alive.

If the person wants the surgery, it's generally thought of as important to their psychological health, as if they had a mental illness, and deserves the same amount of attention / health care.  Every time they use the bathroom/dress/etc, they are reminded of their physical disposition, which is hugely traumatic to some people; they truly and deeply hate parts their bodies and that has a huge impact on mental health.

Having had friends go through this, I am incredibly in support of anyone desiring the surgery to be able to get it, and it be covered through standard health care; the impact it has had one their lives is incredible.

[CrAz3D]

What makes it necessary?

To me, when I think of necessary surgery for a lifer, I'm thinkin stab wound, cancer, etc. When I think of necessary surgery for a death row I think well, just give him the shot now. Going-to-be-released prisoners should get the best treatment, but I'm not so sure about surgery for nonlifethreatening things.

I think it'd take a lot of convincing to get me/most US citizens to believe that hormones + genital surgey = absolutely necessary for Manning to stay alive.

We're not just talking about prisoners.  We're talking about whether sex changes should be covered in general. 

Moreover, I don't know why you keep going back to death row.  Manning is not facing the death penalty.  I don't believe in the death penalty, and of course prisoners should receive necessary medical procedures prior to the penalty -- anything else would be equivalent to torture.   

re: Coverage for the entire free population...I don't agree with the surgery unless it's a life threatening situation

Death row v. life v. gen pop makes a difference to me. I think each category should receive different standards of healthcare. Resources are finite, so the more we provide to people we plan to kill, the less we can provide to others.

What makes it necessary?

To me, when I think of necessary surgery for a lifer, I'm thinkin stab wound, cancer, etc. When I think of necessary surgery for a death row I think well, just give him the shot now. Going-to-be-released prisoners should get the best treatment, but I'm not so sure about surgery for nonlifethreatening things.

I think it'd take a lot of convincing to get me/most US citizens to believe that hormones + genital surgey = absolutely necessary for Manning to stay alive.

If the person wants the surgery, it's generally thought of as important to their psychological health, as if they had a mental illness, and deserves the same amount of attention / health care.  Every time they use the bathroom/dress/etc, they are reminded of their physical disposition, which is hugely traumatic to some people; they truly and deeply hate parts their bodies and that has a huge impact on mental health.

Having had friends go through this, I am incredibly in support of anyone desiring the surgery to be able to get it, and it be covered through standard health care; the impact it has had one their lives is incredible.

Want? Pfft...I give approx. zero shits about what prisoners want. Need? That's what's important. If the prisoner is much more likely to kill his self, I'd say it's probably necessary. Again, though, I can think of a situation in which it'd make _way_ more sense to just execute the prisoner now rather than later instead of providing a surgery that may increase his self-acceptance. (Weird realization = I'm at least partially pro-death panels. I guess I do support Obamacare ;) )

But for serious, I think the whole finite resources thing must be considered. If we provide X to a prisoner, we can't provide X to someone else.