7 ms·

This is monstrous. No other word for it. That people can justify this in the name of some sick version of bureaucratic efficiency... Who are the people that go

by sbenj 4y ago

This is monstrous. No other word for it. That people can justify this in the name of some sick version of bureaucratic efficiency... Who are the people that go along with implementing this?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
vorpalhex 4y ago
I'm surprised that you feel that strongly on induction of labor which is routine, very safe and used frequently. My wife was induced to help reduce the need for emergency c section. Induction is mostly boring (you spend a long time hooked up to an IV).
- AaronFriel 4y ago
  Did you see the "against their will" portion?
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    They are wards of the state which means the state is legally required to care for them to the best of it's ability. If you are a prisoner and want to die of eg cancer instead of seeking treatment that is not an option generally up to you. The state will treat you, whether or not you want it. If the prison can argue that the induction leads to meaningfully better health outcomes (and induction frequently does!) then that is the end of the matter. Your freedom to make subpar decisions or have deeply personal choices (eg a water birth or use a birthing center) is curtailed when you are in prison.
    - caconym_ 4y ago
      I am unsure of whether this comment is meant to justify arbitrary human rights abuses against prisoners on the basis of their status as such, or simply to state that prisoners' human rights are indeed commonly abused. Could you please clarify your position in this regard? If the latter, I think you will find that it does not really need to be said. Most people around here are likely familiar with the abuses of the carceral state.
    - richbell 4y ago
      > They are wards of the state which means the state is legally required to care for them to the best of it's ability. The prisons aren't caring for them to the best of their ability — that's the whole problem. See also: > It is important to mention that inducing birth before term increases the incidence of respiratory problems in the baby (beyond the abhorrent ethical issues). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34237144 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34237144
      - vorpalhex 4y ago
        I think the prison has a fairly simple winning argument here. 1. Births attended by medical staff are much safer 2. The movement of dangerous prisoners is complex and time consuming and is significantly more dangerous during a health crises (imminent birth) 3. Moving prisoners ahead of natural birth to a medical facility and inducing at fullterm leads to more attended births Inductions at term are extremely safe and routine. There are times preterm inductions are done but that isn't what is happening here.
        t-writescode 4y ago
        > The movement of dangerous prisoners You're moving the goal posts, now. The *vast* majority of prisoners are not dangerous. Further, the article referenced specifically mentions people being induced prior to the safe time to induce labor. Further, further, in the context of the existing prison system and human rights violations inside prisons (and *all* humans have human rights. This isn't "freedom of speech", these are even more base than that), this is yet another monstrous example of harming people in the State's care in prisons.
        vorpalhex 4y ago
        The article cites 3 people, two at 39 weeks and one at 37. Term is 35 (but inducing that early isn't ideal, 37 is the earliest you want to go if you can choose). Those are all term and all very safe. Most prisoners are dangerous. The idea that you got busted for an 1oz of weed and went to prison isn't aligned to reality. If you are in prison (not jail) then you went through the full sentancing dance and weren't eligible for a supervised release or a program. That usually means you either keep committing crime or did serious crime. You didn't steal a bicycle.
    - kadoban 4y ago
      > If the prison can argue that the induction leads to meaningfully better health outcomes (and induction frequently does!) then that is the end of the matter The prison doesn't even _have_ an argument, they're denying the truth. So even by your unbelievably-low bar, they're failing.
    - FireBeyond 4y ago
      > to the best of it's ability To the best of its ability would mean not inducing at 37 weeks, which _increases_ problems. Induction at 38 weeks or below is _not_ recommended due to poorer outcomes absent a compelling reason. The solution here is to ensure appropriate medical care, not to say "we can't and won't provide that, so this is what we're going to do, and if you don't like it, maybe you shouldn't be a criminal, and if this has negative health implications for your child, well, then, maybe it shouldn't have had a criminal for a mother".
- richbell 4y ago
  > I'm surprised that you feel that strongly on induction of labor which is routine, very safe and used frequently. My wife was induced to help reduce the need for emergency c section. Presumably because it's being done without their consent. > But all three women said they were told by prison medical providers they were being induced because it was a policy of the Arizona Department of Corrections for all pregnant incarcerated women, not due to their individual conditions. The women say they were given no explanation for the policy, but they believe it is being implemented to reduce liability for the prison system.
- evanwise 4y ago
  A root canal is also a fairly safe procedure but I would be rightfully upset if it was done to me without my consent.
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    If you are in prison and have a serious tooth infection (and that can be fatal though rarely) then yes, the state can absolutely force you to have a root canal. The state only has to show that the care is reasonably required for your meaningful health.
    - richbell 4y ago
      > If you are in prison and have a serious tooth infection (and that can be fatal though rarely) then yes, the state can absolutely force you to have a root canal. This isn't really comparable; it would be like the prison forcibly removing your teeth because you may get a serious tooth infection and they don't want to be liable for that.
    - evanwise 4y ago
      Well, not only are you evil, even worse: you're wrong. The only scenario in which the state can compel you to receive medical treatment while in prison is to ensure the safety of staff or other inmates (e.g. they can force a violent inmate to take anti-psychotics or force inmates to receive vaccinations to prevent the spread of disease). Otherwise, prisoners have the same rights to informed consent as you and I do.
      - evanwise 4y ago
        At this point it's worth pointing out that this user has conspicuously ignored this and other replies that point out that, beyond any moral qualms, the user is woefully uninformed about the medical rights of prisoners. Dunning-Kruger strikes again.
        vorpalhex 4y ago
        https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/prison-inmates-and-consent-treatment-problems-and-issues https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/prison-i... Here's the OJP opinion for your reference. Specifically: > ...court decisions show that prisoners often do not have the right to refuse treatment.
- taco_emoji 4y ago
  I'm gonna go ahead and assume your wife wasn't induced against her will
- 1auralynn 4y ago
  My induction was invasive, uncomfortable, long, and I definitely had mixed feelings about being pressured into it by doctors. If I had NO choice in it, it would have absolutely been traumatic. Might have been boring for you but maybe ask your wife how she would have felt if she had no choice in it.
zozbot234 4y ago
The proper word for it is actually "cruel and unusual punishment".
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- arcticbull 4y ago
  In a way. In Furman v. Georgia, the interpretation of "cruel and unusual" led to a four-part test ([1]): - The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity", especially torture. - "A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion." - "A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society." - "A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary." In a real way, cruel but banal is permitted under this test. For instance solitary confinement and slavery, the latter of which is expressly permitted for prisoners under the 13th amendment. This is of course why the US penal system needs wholesale reform. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruel_and_unusual_punishment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruel_and_unusual_punishment
- autoexec 4y ago
  I think a lot of our current practices in the prison system fall under "cruel and unusual punishment". A large segment of Americans are obsessed with punishment and at every opportunity they push for harsher sentences and the cruel treatment for prisoners. I don't think we can truly reform the justice system until we deal with the culture that brought us to this point. It's the cruelty of the voters that holds us back from large scale changes, and the cruelty of the employees working within the prison system that enable it at a local level.
Natsu 4y ago
They probably want to make sure that the women have actual medical care when delivering, rather than having a baby when nobody is around. I still think it's pretty awful, but it may be an attempt to be less awful given the awful state of prison medical care, which is generally non-existent. See, e.g. that guy who lost his dick to preventable cancer due to not being able to see anybody about it in time: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6360081/Ex-inmate-files-suits-claiming-lost-penis-rare-form-cancer-went-undiagnosed.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6360081/Ex-inmate-f...
- autoexec 4y ago
  > They probably want to make sure that the women have actual medical care when delivering, rather than having a baby when nobody is around. there should never be a time when someone we've locked in a cage is in need of medical care when "nobody is around". Prisons should be staffed at all times and prisoners should have ready access to adequate healthcare whenever the need arises. That may mean prisons in remote locations need more onsite medical staff, but nobody should have to go without access to medical care. When the state takes away someone's freedom and locks them up, the state assumes responsibility for their care and their needs and it's long past time we started insisting they do their job.
  - devilbunny 4y ago
    Great idea in theory, but there's just not enough obstetric practice at a typical prison for a doctor to retain their skills; you can't just do it once a month, and to be accredited you have to have an available operating room on the labor and delivery floor at all times - so if you only have two OR's, you can't start a section in the second one until the first has been cleaned. And we see women who aren't prisoners who come in 6 cm dilated after an hour or so of labor and deliver within 30 minutes. 1.5 hours is a really short time to arrange medical prisoner transport and get them to a hospital. Specialist medical care is really not that easy to do outside relatively urban areas, and people don't generally like living near prisons. I'm not sure what the solution really is, short of a small locked ward that's attached to a real hospital where they can spend every day after 38 weeks. But that gets expensive fast.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
phpisthebest 4y ago
>>Who are the people that go along with implementing this? The system does a good job of conditioning members of the system to dehumanize people not in the system. "Us vs Them"... They are "animals" etc. It is a long tested practice to get enforcers to do the unethical and immoral bidding of the system

by sbenj 4y ago

This is monstrous. No other word for it. That people can justify this in the name of some sick version of bureaucratic efficiency... Who are the people that go along with implementing this?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

vorpalhex 4y ago

I'm surprised that you feel that strongly on induction of labor which is routine, very safe and used frequently. My wife was induced to help reduce the need for emergency c section. Induction is mostly boring (you spend a long time hooked up to an IV).

AaronFriel 4y ago
Did you see the "against their will" portion?
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  They are wards of the state which means the state is legally required to care for them to the best of it's ability. If you are a prisoner and want to die of eg cancer instead of seeking treatment that is not an option generally up to you. The state will treat you, whether or not you want it. If the prison can argue that the induction leads to meaningfully better health outcomes (and induction frequently does!) then that is the end of the matter. Your freedom to make subpar decisions or have deeply personal choices (eg a water birth or use a birthing center) is curtailed when you are in prison.
  - caconym_ 4y ago
    I am unsure of whether this comment is meant to justify arbitrary human rights abuses against prisoners on the basis of their status as such, or simply to state that prisoners' human rights are indeed commonly abused. Could you please clarify your position in this regard? If the latter, I think you will find that it does not really need to be said. Most people around here are likely familiar with the abuses of the carceral state.
  - richbell 4y ago
    > They are wards of the state which means the state is legally required to care for them to the best of it's ability. The prisons aren't caring for them to the best of their ability — that's the whole problem. See also: > It is important to mention that inducing birth before term increases the incidence of respiratory problems in the baby (beyond the abhorrent ethical issues). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34237144 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34237144
    - vorpalhex 4y ago
      I think the prison has a fairly simple winning argument here. 1. Births attended by medical staff are much safer 2. The movement of dangerous prisoners is complex and time consuming and is significantly more dangerous during a health crises (imminent birth) 3. Moving prisoners ahead of natural birth to a medical facility and inducing at fullterm leads to more attended births Inductions at term are extremely safe and routine. There are times preterm inductions are done but that isn't what is happening here.
      - t-writescode 4y ago
        > The movement of dangerous prisoners You're moving the goal posts, now. The *vast* majority of prisoners are not dangerous. Further, the article referenced specifically mentions people being induced prior to the safe time to induce labor. Further, further, in the context of the existing prison system and human rights violations inside prisons (and *all* humans have human rights. This isn't "freedom of speech", these are even more base than that), this is yet another monstrous example of harming people in the State's care in prisons.
        vorpalhex 4y ago
        The article cites 3 people, two at 39 weeks and one at 37. Term is 35 (but inducing that early isn't ideal, 37 is the earliest you want to go if you can choose). Those are all term and all very safe. Most prisoners are dangerous. The idea that you got busted for an 1oz of weed and went to prison isn't aligned to reality. If you are in prison (not jail) then you went through the full sentancing dance and weren't eligible for a supervised release or a program. That usually means you either keep committing crime or did serious crime. You didn't steal a bicycle.
  - kadoban 4y ago
    > If the prison can argue that the induction leads to meaningfully better health outcomes (and induction frequently does!) then that is the end of the matter The prison doesn't even _have_ an argument, they're denying the truth. So even by your unbelievably-low bar, they're failing.
  - FireBeyond 4y ago
    > to the best of it's ability To the best of its ability would mean not inducing at 37 weeks, which _increases_ problems. Induction at 38 weeks or below is _not_ recommended due to poorer outcomes absent a compelling reason. The solution here is to ensure appropriate medical care, not to say "we can't and won't provide that, so this is what we're going to do, and if you don't like it, maybe you shouldn't be a criminal, and if this has negative health implications for your child, well, then, maybe it shouldn't have had a criminal for a mother".
richbell 4y ago
> I'm surprised that you feel that strongly on induction of labor which is routine, very safe and used frequently. My wife was induced to help reduce the need for emergency c section. Presumably because it's being done without their consent. > But all three women said they were told by prison medical providers they were being induced because it was a policy of the Arizona Department of Corrections for all pregnant incarcerated women, not due to their individual conditions. The women say they were given no explanation for the policy, but they believe it is being implemented to reduce liability for the prison system.
evanwise 4y ago
A root canal is also a fairly safe procedure but I would be rightfully upset if it was done to me without my consent.
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  If you are in prison and have a serious tooth infection (and that can be fatal though rarely) then yes, the state can absolutely force you to have a root canal. The state only has to show that the care is reasonably required for your meaningful health.
  - richbell 4y ago
    > If you are in prison and have a serious tooth infection (and that can be fatal though rarely) then yes, the state can absolutely force you to have a root canal. This isn't really comparable; it would be like the prison forcibly removing your teeth because you may get a serious tooth infection and they don't want to be liable for that.
  - evanwise 4y ago
    Well, not only are you evil, even worse: you're wrong. The only scenario in which the state can compel you to receive medical treatment while in prison is to ensure the safety of staff or other inmates (e.g. they can force a violent inmate to take anti-psychotics or force inmates to receive vaccinations to prevent the spread of disease). Otherwise, prisoners have the same rights to informed consent as you and I do.
    - evanwise 4y ago
      At this point it's worth pointing out that this user has conspicuously ignored this and other replies that point out that, beyond any moral qualms, the user is woefully uninformed about the medical rights of prisoners. Dunning-Kruger strikes again.
      - vorpalhex 4y ago
        https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/prison-inmates-and-consent-treatment-problems-and-issues https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/prison-i... Here's the OJP opinion for your reference. Specifically: > ...court decisions show that prisoners often do not have the right to refuse treatment.
taco_emoji 4y ago
I'm gonna go ahead and assume your wife wasn't induced against her will
1auralynn 4y ago
My induction was invasive, uncomfortable, long, and I definitely had mixed feelings about being pressured into it by doctors. If I had NO choice in it, it would have absolutely been traumatic. Might have been boring for you but maybe ask your wife how she would have felt if she had no choice in it.

zozbot234 4y ago

The proper word for it is actually "cruel and unusual punishment".

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
arcticbull 4y ago
In a way. In Furman v. Georgia, the interpretation of "cruel and unusual" led to a four-part test ([1]): - The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity", especially torture. - "A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion." - "A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society." - "A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary." In a real way, cruel but banal is permitted under this test. For instance solitary confinement and slavery, the latter of which is expressly permitted for prisoners under the 13th amendment. This is of course why the US penal system needs wholesale reform. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruel_and_unusual_punishment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruel_and_unusual_punishment
autoexec 4y ago
I think a lot of our current practices in the prison system fall under "cruel and unusual punishment". A large segment of Americans are obsessed with punishment and at every opportunity they push for harsher sentences and the cruel treatment for prisoners. I don't think we can truly reform the justice system until we deal with the culture that brought us to this point. It's the cruelty of the voters that holds us back from large scale changes, and the cruelty of the employees working within the prison system that enable it at a local level.

Natsu 4y ago

They probably want to make sure that the women have actual medical care when delivering, rather than having a baby when nobody is around. I still think it's pretty awful, but it may be an attempt to be less awful given the awful state of prison medical care, which is generally non-existent. See, e.g. that guy who lost his dick to preventable cancer due to not being able to see anybody about it in time: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6360081/Ex-inmate-files-suits-claiming-lost-penis-rare-form-cancer-went-undiagnosed.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6360081/Ex-inmate-f...

autoexec 4y ago
> They probably want to make sure that the women have actual medical care when delivering, rather than having a baby when nobody is around. there should never be a time when someone we've locked in a cage is in need of medical care when "nobody is around". Prisons should be staffed at all times and prisoners should have ready access to adequate healthcare whenever the need arises. That may mean prisons in remote locations need more onsite medical staff, but nobody should have to go without access to medical care. When the state takes away someone's freedom and locks them up, the state assumes responsibility for their care and their needs and it's long past time we started insisting they do their job.
- devilbunny 4y ago
  Great idea in theory, but there's just not enough obstetric practice at a typical prison for a doctor to retain their skills; you can't just do it once a month, and to be accredited you have to have an available operating room on the labor and delivery floor at all times - so if you only have two OR's, you can't start a section in the second one until the first has been cleaned. And we see women who aren't prisoners who come in 6 cm dilated after an hour or so of labor and deliver within 30 minutes. 1.5 hours is a really short time to arrange medical prisoner transport and get them to a hospital. Specialist medical care is really not that easy to do outside relatively urban areas, and people don't generally like living near prisons. I'm not sure what the solution really is, short of a small locked ward that's attached to a real hospital where they can spend every day after 38 weeks. But that gets expensive fast.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

phpisthebest 4y ago

>>Who are the people that go along with implementing this? The system does a good job of conditioning members of the system to dehumanize people not in the system. "Us vs Them"... They are "animals" etc. It is a long tested practice to get enforcers to do the unethical and immoral bidding of the system