This story is interesting:
A trial that opened more than a year ago has become bogged down in Boston federal court. There have been hundreds of hours of testimony from witnesses, including 10 medical specialists paid tens of thousands of dollars. The judge himself even hired an expert to help him make sense of it all.
The question at the center of the case: Should a murderer serving life in prison get a sex-change operation at taxpayer expense?
Consider this: the cost of just the experts exceeds the cost of the surgery.
An Associated Press review of the case, including figures obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests and interviews, found that the Correction Department and its outside health care provider have spent more than $52,000 on experts to testify about an operation that would cost about $20,000.
I guess the argument is that it would be better to spend the money on experts (not to mention the other costs of trial) than to open the floodgates and pay for the surgery for this man and the two others who have requested it.
But if only three have requested the surgery, wouldn’t it cost the taxpayers less money to just go ahead and pay for the surgery?
Your thoughts?
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
I don’t know how I feel about the merits, but I’m pretty sure I don’t begrudge the cost of doing a good job of sorting it out. It has the potential to have much impact as precedent, and it’s important that it be done righ.
Sorry, I really don’t feel anywhere near enough sympathy for the inmate to be willing to have the state to pay for it. I mean, there are quite a few people who obey the law and would never have the surgery paid for.
If they could work out programs where inmates do extra work for pay, on top of whatever they have to do now, I’d be ok with them getting minimum wage and working towards it.
The fact that I have to work my tail off for what I want though, and I’ve never been arrested in my life? Sorry, he can just deal with it. Part of being in jail is losing certain rights. Let having money be spent on you be one of them.
And really, what the state ought to and ought not do should be based on the amount of sympathy one has for the beneficiaries.
Absolutely not. You’re in prison. You broke the law. Unless you’re being abused, sit down, shut the hell up, and serve your term.
The legal question probably pertains to all elective surgery for prisoners, so perhaps the care and expense is justifiable. Also, would you pay for non-elective/emergency surgery if they prisoner was awaiting the death penalty? Does it matter if appeals are exhausted? Does it matter if the condition is painful?
How about a female patient with a bad back – does she get breast reduction to relieve the back pain? How about a person with no health insurance. If she passed a few bad checks to get arrested and get the reduction for free, is it a good idea to perform the surgery? Or is it better to have prisoners in pain? Is pain part of the sentence?
Does it matter if the crime is related to the condition he has – for example, if he had a medical condition and was severely clinically depressed, and he attacked someone who made fun of his condition, should the prisoner get surgery for the condition? Does it matter if he killed the guy making fun, or just socked him a good one?
“Tough cases make bad law,” and it would be a shame if prisoners didn’t get needed surgery because of this tough case. Although transgender may soon be recognized as a legitimate medical condition, based on current medical information, this surgery seems elective and not required.
Will this “man” die if “he” does not have the surgery? Will “he” be permanently scarred or maimed? No on both counts. It’s elective surgery, so he can elect to pay for it.
Dannyboy, you’re so close to “Republican” I can almost applaud!
I think considering one of the necessary ramifications of the proceedure is that the prisoner in question will have to be transfered from a men’s facility to a women’s facility, then a very narrow view of this particular question (rather than expanding it to include any and all elective proceedures, both medically-beneficient or not) should have to answer, “no.” At least when it comes to gender, segregation still exists in the penal system (quit laughing, Dannyboy), and there’s no such thing as separate but equal. So rather than try to figure out how we’re going to ensure that transgendered prisoners don’t have it easier than prisoners who are committed to working with what the good Lord gave them, let’s all agree that they can wait until they’re released to worry about their undercarriage.
If you’re referring to the knee-jerk and oblivious-to-consequences reasoning that Danny appears to display, I think you’re right, Brian.
I love the way liberals can always find a way to reason anything acceptable. This discussion focuses on a prison inmate, an inmate because the person violated a law of the state and was found guilty, who is seeking to have the law abiding citizens of the state pay for an operation that is not needed and will not in anyway benefit society. If the inmate can afford to pay for the operation, then I think once their sentence is served, the former inmate can have whatever operation they can afford.
#8 anonymous commenter gives us a good example of an ethical anonymous comment. It is a thoroughly written argument of his point that we can judge on its merits, regardless of who the author is.
And I would have probably skipped the experts and just said “no.” I like a good debate as much as the next guy or gal, but a taxpayer funded sex change operation for a convicted criminal? That is just ridiculous.
Red – you must be reading something totally different that what is posted here. Not a single response advocated paying for the surgery.
In my opinion, it is vital that the state NOT pay for an elective surgery such as this. I mean, really, this is almost beyond the simple term “elective surgery”. A nose job, that’s elective surgery. Having a mole removed, that’s an elective surgery. Splitting your penis down the middle, inverting it, and then remaining on hormone therapy for the rest of your life…that’s a lifestyle change and perhaps one you don’t deserve (being a prisoner and all).
I’m not a man who looks down upon criminals. Any one of us is a decision or two away from being labled “criminal” and tossed into a hole. As such, I usually side for giving more rights/freedoms to criminals in prison. But this is just too much; a sex change opperation…on OUR dime?! Are you kidding me?! If it’s neccessary, he can pay for it. If he can’t afford it, welcome to reality!
Rob! Not before I’ve had my morning coffee, please! 😉
Love these “Opinion, Please” posts Vivian! I’m leaning towards No on this one, though I’m still working out my complete reasoning.
I too have to wonder if some of the “nays” have read the full post as well. I see a lot of people reasoning that he can get the operation when he gets out of prison. He’s “serving life.” Yes, that dosn’t mean there isn’t any possibility he won’t get out of prison, but we should probably stick to the context if we’re going to seriously discuss this.