7 ms·

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

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.
        FireBeyond 4y ago
        > Term is 35 (but inducing that early isn't ideal Conflating natural delivery (where the body has decided, for whatever reason, that it is now time to deliver the child) with induction is not an appropriate comparison. > 37 is the earliest you want to go if you can choose). I would be willing to wager money that you are not going to find ANY obstetrician in the US who will induce at 37 weeks for no other reason than familial "choice" ("elective induction"). In fact ACOG specifically says that it should not happen without medical basis. > The idea that you got busted for an 1oz of weed and went to prison isn't aligned to reality. Perhaps you should read more about prison in Arizona, and of law enforcement officials like Sheriff Arpaio. Here: https://hernandez-hamilton.com/the-arizona-criminal-justice-system-is-one-of-the-very-harshest-in-the-nation/ https://hernandez-hamilton.com/the-arizona-criminal-justice-... Some quotes from that and the ACLU: > It is grotesquely expensive, unduly punitive, discriminatory against minorities (especially against Latinos) and does little to actually keep our communities safe or cut down on recidivism. > About 1 out of every 40 Latino men in Arizona are currently in prison. Even more are currently in the various other phases of the criminal justice system (pretrial release, jail, probation, parole, warrant status etc.). Arizona prison population is more than 40 percent Latino, but Latino’s only make up about 27 percent of our overall population. > Our legislature is to blame for these insane prison statistics because it allows itself to be influenced by Arizona prosecutors to scuttle any prison reform initiatives. Prosecutors have a powerful lobby called Arizona Prosecuting Attorney’s Advisory Council (“APAAC”) which it uses to influence the legislative process to its own benefit. In the last few years alone, Arizona’s prosecutors have opposed bail reform, sentencing reform, and lighter drug sentences while supporting stiffer penalties for a number of offenses. You may recognize APAAC - it's one of the sources you quoted with reference to "prison is full of dangerous and violent offenders". When I first read it it sounded like a District Attorney's campaign speech, and no wonder - it's their lobbying organization, that has opposed each and every reform bill in AZ in the last 24 years. > You didn't steal a bicycle. Or of an Arizona man convicted of several thefts in the space of three months from yards, sheds, all agreed by the state to be non-violent offenses, and only a couple involved entering any structure at all... his sentence? Two hundred and ninety two years. What did he steal that earned this sentence? A drill, flashlight, telescope, credit card. Arizona also repeatedly sentences people sentences, up to life, with parole. Including plea bargains. And then it abolished the concept of parole. For nearly 300 people, this means now the state has "changed the terms of the deal or sentencing after the fact". (https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-investigations/2017/03/19/myth-life-sentence-with-parole-arizona-clemency/99316310/ https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-investiga...) Your attitude of "most of these people are dangerous criminals" is also not entirely aligned with reality.
  - 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.

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.
        FireBeyond 4y ago
        > Term is 35 (but inducing that early isn't ideal Conflating natural delivery (where the body has decided, for whatever reason, that it is now time to deliver the child) with induction is not an appropriate comparison. > 37 is the earliest you want to go if you can choose). I would be willing to wager money that you are not going to find ANY obstetrician in the US who will induce at 37 weeks for no other reason than familial "choice" ("elective induction"). In fact ACOG specifically says that it should not happen without medical basis. > The idea that you got busted for an 1oz of weed and went to prison isn't aligned to reality. Perhaps you should read more about prison in Arizona, and of law enforcement officials like Sheriff Arpaio. Here: https://hernandez-hamilton.com/the-arizona-criminal-justice-system-is-one-of-the-very-harshest-in-the-nation/ https://hernandez-hamilton.com/the-arizona-criminal-justice-... Some quotes from that and the ACLU: > It is grotesquely expensive, unduly punitive, discriminatory against minorities (especially against Latinos) and does little to actually keep our communities safe or cut down on recidivism. > About 1 out of every 40 Latino men in Arizona are currently in prison. Even more are currently in the various other phases of the criminal justice system (pretrial release, jail, probation, parole, warrant status etc.). Arizona prison population is more than 40 percent Latino, but Latino’s only make up about 27 percent of our overall population. > Our legislature is to blame for these insane prison statistics because it allows itself to be influenced by Arizona prosecutors to scuttle any prison reform initiatives. Prosecutors have a powerful lobby called Arizona Prosecuting Attorney’s Advisory Council (“APAAC”) which it uses to influence the legislative process to its own benefit. In the last few years alone, Arizona’s prosecutors have opposed bail reform, sentencing reform, and lighter drug sentences while supporting stiffer penalties for a number of offenses. You may recognize APAAC - it's one of the sources you quoted with reference to "prison is full of dangerous and violent offenders". When I first read it it sounded like a District Attorney's campaign speech, and no wonder - it's their lobbying organization, that has opposed each and every reform bill in AZ in the last 24 years. > You didn't steal a bicycle. Or of an Arizona man convicted of several thefts in the space of three months from yards, sheds, all agreed by the state to be non-violent offenses, and only a couple involved entering any structure at all... his sentence? Two hundred and ninety two years. What did he steal that earned this sentence? A drill, flashlight, telescope, credit card. Arizona also repeatedly sentences people sentences, up to life, with parole. Including plea bargains. And then it abolished the concept of parole. For nearly 300 people, this means now the state has "changed the terms of the deal or sentencing after the fact". (https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-investigations/2017/03/19/myth-life-sentence-with-parole-arizona-clemency/99316310/ https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-investiga...) Your attitude of "most of these people are dangerous criminals" is also not entirely aligned with reality.
- 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.