In prison, the expectation is that inmates will get what is considered “the standard of care” available in the community. This doesn’t mean they get whatever they want, but rather they get what’s currently accepted as necessary by the local medical community. That’s necessary, not “nicer” or “less unpleasant”.
With diabetes this means they get NPH and Regular insulin, but not the new Lantus or Humalog insulinss, which do make management a bit easier for some, but cost 5 times as much.
For their reflux esophagitis, they get cheap ranitidine first, and get to go on generic prilosec only if ranitidine fails. They won’t get Nexxium unless all other therapies truly fail.
Frankly, I take damn good care of my patients in prison, and I work hard to take care of their needs. What is different here, is that their wants (which they often misperceive as their needs) will not get the attention that a private physician will give to a paying patient.
Jeez Qadgop…I was just using this case as an example, to illustrate the policy of the Corrections Dept. here to refuse treatments not available to the general prison population, not to argue for Hep C treatment policy. I didn’t mean to touch a nerve. If you’re curious, a respected physician here, Dr. Bennett Cecil of the VA, had joined in the lawsuit to force the prison to allow treatment of the patient, which in Dr. Cecil’s opinion was medically warranted. He had already developed cirrhosis, and as of the last newspaper story he’d responded to the interferon and ribavirin treatment and had reduced the virus in his system to undetectable levels. So he was one of the lucky ones who could benefit. I’ve only heard of of maybe 20 other prisoners since then who’ve been treated for Hep C in Kentucky, following the successful lawsuit. But like I said, I’m not arguing one way or the other. I was just trying to point out that here in Kentucky the Corrections Dept. won’t allow prisoners or others to pay for treatment beyond that which the prisons offer to everyone.
Sorry, I’m still a bit twitchy over a lawsuit for failing to immediately treat hepatitis C within weeks of our initial assessment, even though the patient had it for years and knew it, but did nothing about it while he was on the outside.
The initial assessment to see if a hep C patient needs treatment takes about 6 months here in our system. That standard is held to be reasonable and meeting current medical standards.
I understand completely. I know a physician who was part of a malpractice lawsuit a few years ago. His complete involvement with the patient had consisted of a 5-minute consultation with the attending physician, but the jury somehow decided he was 5% at fault and ordered him to pay damages. Having heard about the case, I still have no idea how he could have been expected to do anything differently, so I can see why he’s still angry. I can only imagine what the ruling did to his malpractice insurance rates. Quite a few medical lawsuits should never make it past the first judicial hearing, but do anyway.
First, I agree with your general conclusions. But “vast amounts of drugs” is not simple possession - it’s possession with intent to sell, at the very least.
Also, this is kinda snarky, but unless your husband reviews every prisoner’s record and memorizes their offences, why would he know? It sounds like a wild-assed guess to me.
Well, he kind of does. He’s in administration now, so he needs to know bits of trivia like who’s in for what for security clearances and the like. He’s also worked other jobs in the prison which meant lots of time poring over inmate records, compiling reports for treatment programs and things like that.
When it comes to his job, he has a phenomenal memory for detail. At any given time, he’s able to give accurate statistics about how many offenders are incarcerated for which offense.
(A lot of these records are now computerized, so it makes searching for statistics much easier than it used to be. He used to spend hours in the “vaults” searching for what can now be found with the click of a mouse.)
That sounds reasonable enough. Sorry for the snarkiness; of course someone analyzes the prison population, it just didn’t occur to me.
Again, I agree with your point. I know a few folks who’ve been busted, and none of 'em went to prison. Jail time, parole, fines, and maybe rehab, yeah, but not prison. (Of course, if they’d broken their parole they’d have been sent up the river.)
Hey, that’s okay. It’s a reasonable question to ask. It’s not unknown around here for people to make assertions without any actual knowledge of the subject. You gotta challenge people sometimes.
