Convict sues after being denied sex change - wants Nebraska tax money to pay for it

a reply to: Shamrock6
I believe what a person is convicted for absolutely should be used to determine what privileges a convict is entitled too.

However, elective, cosmetic surgery, IMHO, should never be given to a convicted felon. Period.
If said felon does his time and is released after serving his time, I would be favorable towards beginning the determination process

If a medical professional were to determine that the only way to assure this person would never harm another child was to castrate AND remove the appendage, and that was the only condition this person could be released under, then I would support that.
Give the 'pedo' as you so fondly say, the choice.

Have it all removed and you could be eligible for parole, or keep it and stay for life.

a reply to: IAMTAT

Um what dictionary are you using?

Litigious

excessively or readily inclined to litigate

Anyway reldra's posts are the only good and logical replies to the OP in this thread. I agree with him/her. It is up to the doctors and the guidelines. They have to consider the long-run aspect of it.

originally posted by: stosh64
a reply to: Shamrock6
I believe what a person is convicted for absolutely should be used to determine what privileges a convict is entitled too.

However, elective, cosmetic surgery, IMHO, should never be given to a convicted felon. Period.
If said felon does his time and is released after serving his time, I would be favorable towards beginning the determination process

If a medical professional were to determine that the only way to assure this person would never harm another child was to castrate AND remove the appendage, and that was the only condition this person could be released under, then I would support that.
Give the 'pedo' as you so fondly say, the choice.

Have it all removed and you could be eligible for parole, or keep it and stay for life.

This is not elective surgery, though. I believe an appeals court has already ruled. Furthermore, the discussion of the crime oversteps the boundaries of the question of the OP, which was made clear.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: IAMTAT

Um what dictionary are you using?

Litigious

excessively or readily inclined to litigate

Anyway reldra's posts are the only good and logical replies to the OP in this thread. I agree with him/her. It is up to the doctors and the guidelines. They have to consider the long-run aspect of it.

Really?

Oxford

Definition of litigious in English:
adjective

1. Concerned with lawsuits or litigation.

First of all, qualifying for sex reassignment surgery doesn't consist of waking up one day and saying "Hey, I'm trans*, I want my surgery scheduled for this afternoon."

Indeed, the evaluations and reviews for even qualifying for the procedure are considerable and can take years.

There are numerous sources online which detail these requirements if anyone is interested in educating themselves; I'l provide a general link below:

Medical requirements and consequences of sex reassignment surgery. (National Institutes of Health)

Prior to considering surgical reassignment, the key issue for the surgeon is to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the gender dysphoria or transsexual feeling is genuine and that surgical reassignment will be beneficial. For this he will need the expertise of a reputable behavioural scientist. To determine whether the patient is physically fit for surgery, the surgeon may lean on the expertise of an endocrinologist with substantial personal experience in the field of hormonal treatment of transsexuals.

... and so on.

Physical testing, psychological evaluation, extended periods of living as the desired sex. Etc.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: IAMTAT

Um what dictionary are you using?

Litigious

excessively or readily inclined to litigate

Anyway reldra's posts are the only good and logical replies to the OP in this thread. I agree with him/her. It is up to the doctors and the guidelines. They have to consider the long-run aspect of it.

Really?

Oxford

Definition of litigious in English:
adjective

1. Concerned with lawsuits or litigation.

'Concerned with' should give you the clue. It means beyond one instance. Almost a preoccupation.

Oxford Online

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: reldra

Administrative segregation, sensitive needs unit, a new prison entirely. The offender wouldn't be the first one in history to have a sex change, so there is some groundbreaking already done on that regard. I don't think that angle would be much of a headache, unless the offender makes it one.

Which is entirely possible, of course.

We already know the prisoner is litigious.

Because the prisoner took this one case to court?

By definition, Yes.

No. The main definition points to 'unusually prone to sue'. Not that a person has sued 1 time.

reldra...This is hardly a paragon of virtue we're discussing here.
Why assume rational and prudent behavior from a convicted serial child molester?

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: IAMTAT

Um what dictionary are you using?

Litigious

excessively or readily inclined to litigate

Anyway reldra's posts are the only good and logical replies to the OP in this thread. I agree with him/her. It is up to the doctors and the guidelines. They have to consider the long-run aspect of it.

Really?

Oxford

Definition of litigious in English:
adjective

1. Concerned with lawsuits or litigation.

That's correct. The word is an adjective for litigation.

You missed the part in that entry where it states:

Tending or too ready to take legal action to settle disputes

a reply to: reldra
Seeing as we are discussing reassignment surgery on convicted felons the crime should be first and foremost in determination.

But the fact that this is a SJW topic, reason and logic take a back seat.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: reldra

Administrative segregation, sensitive needs unit, a new prison entirely. The offender wouldn't be the first one in history to have a sex change, so there is some groundbreaking already done on that regard. I don't think that angle would be much of a headache, unless the offender makes it one.

Which is entirely possible, of course.

We already know the prisoner is litigious.

Because the prisoner took this one case to court?

By definition, Yes.

No. The main definition points to 'unusually prone to sue'. Not that a person has sued 1 time.

reldra...This is hardly a paragon of virtue we're discussing here.
Why assume rational and prudent behavior from a convicted serial child molester?

I will assume based upon 1 legal suit. I will not assume based on speculation.

It is not logical to assume that a person's actions in one way will dictate their actions in another. Whether rational/prudent or irrational/imprudent. Your course of thinking is not correct.

a reply to: stosh64

Dude. Enough with trying to paint me as some sort of pedo supporter. I'm pretty obviously not the one who's incapable of discussing this without getting stuck on the crimes committed by the offender, rather than the subject opened up in the OP. You're just making your talk of "conditioned" all the more ironic, given your inability to lose the blinders because you read "kiddie porn" in the OP source.

I'm not clear what you actually support. First you say you would be favorable to "beginning the determination process" after the inmate serves and is released. So how exactly would that put the state on the hook for it? Sentence is served, inmate is released. Medical care is no longer the state's responsibility. Then you say let a medical professional determine if castration would keep the person from reoffending, go ahead and do it.

You do understand you don't need a wang to commit a sex act, right?

Allow me to reiterate: I'm pretty over the thinly veiled attempts at painting me as some sort of pedophile apologist. If you can't respond without continuing to play that angle, I'm really not at all interested in what you have to say.

a reply to: stosh64

Now you're just talking out of both sides of your mouth.

First you say cosmetic and elective surgery should never be given to a felon. Then you say it should be a condition of their release if it'll prevent them from reoffending.

So what about a guy who robs a bank and wants a sex change? According to you, no felon should ever get it. Unless they're a second offender. Then they can.

But only as long as somebody can find a crystal ball and say if they get it they won't reoffend.

I see that "SJW" is evolving into the same silliness as PC has ... anything can be written off to that code and no facts have to be considered.

There's plenty of reason and logic in the discussion on the part of some. Let's continue exploring the facts of the matter as OP has requested rather than simplistic appeals to emotion that we all probably understand and agree with to some extent, i.e. no one is in favor of child molestation and abuse.

a reply to: Gryphon66
The determination process you stated is appropriate, and should be carried out, even if the person is not capable of meeting the financial responsibilities, ea: I wouldn't have a problem with Medicaid determining this.

However, if this person is a convicted felon currently doing time there is no way in hell this should be considered.

After time is served, his debt is paid and doctors should be able to fairly determine his treatment.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Excellent post.

That makes me wonder how truthful the offender is about his history then. Has he actually spoken with therapists? Lived as a woman? Can he back up his claims that this has been ongoing for years?

Even if the offender were to win their suit, I would think they'd still be years away from actually having surgery wouldn't they?

originally posted by: stosh64
a reply to: Gryphon66
The determination process you stated is appropriate, and should be carried out, even if the person is not capable of meeting the financial responsibilities, ea: I wouldn't have a problem with Medicaid determining this.

However, if this person is a convicted felon currently doing time there is no way in hell this should be considered.

After time is served, his debt is paid and doctors should be able to fairly determine his treatment.

How do you think medical problems are covered for those incarcerated? And, no matter how you think, this type of treatment been classified as necessary and not elective. So, where does your argument go from here?

originally posted by: stosh64
a reply to: Gryphon66
The determination process you stated is appropriate, and should be carried out, even if the person is not capable of meeting the financial responsibilities, ea: I wouldn't have a problem with Medicaid determining this.

However, if this person is a convicted felon currently doing time there is no way in hell this should be considered.

After time is served, his debt is paid and doctors should be able to fairly determine his treatment.

I copied a basic standard from an abstract of a publication at the National Institutes of Health.

Sex reassignment surgery and the process is considered medical treatment. I'm not sure there's a clear basis for arbitrarily denying medical treatment, although, I haven't checked on the standards set by the Nebraska Penal Code or system.

I will observe, however, that in general, we don't provide medical treatment because we like a person or agree with what they've done. The decision, in other words, is not an emotional one but a medical one (and probably a legal one in this case.)

Does anyone know off-hand if Nebraska has tackled the subject legislatively?

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Gryphon66

Excellent post.

That makes me wonder how truthful the offender is about his history then. Has he actually spoken with therapists? Lived as a woman? Can he back up his claims that this has been ongoing for years?

Even if the offender were to win their suit, I would think they'd still be years away from actually having surgery wouldn't they?

Yes, I believe they sued for the right to start THAT process and won. See Benevolent Heretic's post.

NO...I am incorrect. This person has been in this process for years. They have won in court to receive the surgery. She has been receiving the hormone treatments since 2000.

a reply to: Shamrock6
If the person has 'paid his debt to society', he should have the opportunities of any other person regarding this procedure.

Pretty simple. It should not be available to a currently detained felon.

Castrating and removing a pedos unit is NOT reconstructive surgery.

And now this devolves into the typical personal BS.

Have a nice day.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Gryphon66

Excellent post.

That makes me wonder how truthful the offender is about his history then. Has he actually spoken with therapists? Lived as a woman? Can he back up his claims that this has been ongoing for years?

Even if the offender were to win their suit, I would think they'd still be years away from actually having surgery wouldn't they?

I have some general knowledge about the process. It is very trying to make it through the process under the best conditions. I do not believe that an incarcerated prisoner could meet even the most basic requirements.

And while I have no facts or evidence specific to the individual we are discussing, I would observe that a basic psych evaluation is likely going to reveal any number of complications that would disqualify them for this particular treatment.

Generally speaking of course.