Medicine and Social Justice - Essay Example

The Case of Estelle v. Gamble The Case of Estelle v. Gamble Prisoners are human beings as well and even though they are punished through times of incarcerations, they deserve to be treated as well. The law of non-contradiction dictates that people should face proper responsibility to the consequences of the choices they make, but these consequences as expressed before the law, should reflect the magnitude of their wrong doings. The justice system is established to judge the guiltiness of a suspect and if found guilty, it should punish them accordingly. The police, Judicial and correctional systems of the United States of America have been stained with cases of disparity and discriminatory malpractices while handling criminal cases, judgements and corrections respectively (Teitelbaum & Wilensky, 2009). The case of Estelle v. Gamble, however, hovered on top of the later substance, which indeed, marks the end of the procedure for dealing with crime. It is meant to implement correctional duties but not to inflict pain or act in an extra-judicial manned upon the prisoners. The inhumane behaviour that inflicted extreme medical torture and emotional suffering on Mr. Gamble while he was incarcerated could, therefore, finally cause an intense court case that ensured progressive alteration in the corrections departments of the United States of America. The hands-of-doctrine had concentrated thoughts on the correctional law in United States during the nineteenth century. The United States courts had regarded prisoners as “state’s slaves) and many judges believed that inmates had no rights given that they had been forfeited because of their crimes. Therefore, they did not interfere with the actions of correctional institutions since they believed that would constitute a violation of the principle of separation of power. In perspective, they did not want to intervene in the affairs of the authority of the executive branch that administer prisons. This is where the case of Estelle v. Gamble had created the greatest noticeable change, and they came to acknowledge that the courts had the right and duty to find resolutions over the constitutional claims of prisoners. The BOP (Federal Bureau of Prisons), had created a handbook in a bid to change the prisons system in a manner that would ensure healthy standards of living was created to be responsible for confining offenders in correction institutions that are humane, safe, secure and cost-efficient. As part of their duties, they are responsible for delivering necessary healthcare to prisoners in accordance with proper and reasonable standards of care (Teitelbaum & Wilensky, 2009). The case of Estelle v. Gamble (429 U.S. 97 (1976) was a supreme court case of the United States of America, which created the standards of what a prisoner may plead or raise in order to claim a violation of the Eighth Amendment under 42 U. S. C. Ss 1983. The case brought many alterations in the construct of the United States Correctional facilities and the system at large. At the time, there was a vehement disparity in the United States correctional system and prisoners were maltreated in a manner that was termed as cruel, inhumane and unusual punishment. The correctional officers practiced these acts on a claim that the victims were prisoners; hence, they deserved such malpractices. However, the court ruling viewed the whole scenario as a growing culture in the correctional department as absurd in a manner that does not conform to the expectations of proper social and humanitarian behaviour (Rhodes, Battin & Silvers, 2012). Consequently, the Supreme Court that changed the correctional systems for good made correctional and progressive ruling: positively influencing the lives of the prisoners and the actions of the administrators, correctional officers and the whole correctional systems’ managements. Historically, the correctional facilities failed to offer proper medical attention to the prisoners. The prisoners were neglected and whenever they fell ill, they faced extreme negligence. Even though the correctional facilities had established medical unit meant to care for the inmates, the doctors and nurses would despise the prisoners and either provide poor medical attention or simply neglect the to their own suffering. As a result, many prisoners even died in situations that would be controlled by the assigned medical personnel. In perspective, they lacked the recommendable medical ethics that they had sworn to live by as long as they are in practice (Gostin, 2002). Actually, apart from any other ethical dilemmas prisoners faced in the correctional facilities, the main issue that triggered the Supreme Court case of Estelle v. Gamble circled around medical negligence and maltreatment. That is the domain of the problem that the ruling finally focused on and gave much of the rectifications. The actions of the corrections department clearly did not adhere to the philosophical or the ethical demand of deontology, which finds morality in the motive than result; neither did it conform to the rule of utilitarianism, which observes morality on the results than the motive. The Supreme Court would, as a result, find a justifiable course or solution that changed the lives of every prisoner in the United States of America (Wrightsman, 2006). The American prisons subjected prisoners to hard labour and were consequently vulnerable to health problems (Gostin, 2002). The corrections department is an institution of changing the prisoners from their criminal behaviour to being responsible members of the society. Instead, the prisoners were treated with cruelty that that denied them the right to life or even possibly, transform them into more dangerous citizens upon release. Human life should be treated with respect especially in an institution where various people with different behaviour co-exist (Gostin, 2002). These are some moral principles that the corrections department of Texas failed to follow. The state prisoner, J.W. Gamble, of Texas department of corrections was assigned of hard labour during his prison time. He was assigned prison labour of uploading and downloading trucks of cotton bales. The task was intensive and in 1973 0n November 9th, he injured himself on the back following an incident: a cotton bale fell on him. For three weeks, he complained of intense back pains but the administration failed to respond to him accordingly, he then complained of chest pains but was neglected as well (Rhodes, Battin, & Silvers, 2012). The pains became worse that he could no longer attend to his duties. Following his inability to perform on labour, he was segregated by the administration and accused of refusing to work. His health deteriorated and was eventually diagnosed of irregular heartbeat. On 1974, February 11th, he pursued a lawsuit pro se, by presenting handwritten document the relevant authorities. Gamble who was the respondent and state inmate initiated what was seen as a civil right action against the petitioners, who were the corrections department medical director called Gay, and two correctional officials. He claimed they had violated the Eighth Amendment and subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment. They had neglected his medical needs and only offered inadequate treatment when he sustained a back injury, which he suffered when engaged in a prison work. Originally, the District Court unfortunately dismissed the complaint quoting that he had issued a claim that a relief could not be granted. The Court of Appeal on the other side stated that the alleged insufficiency to receive medical treatment required reinstatement of the case. It was held that, the prison personnel disparity to Gamble’s serious injury and illness contributes to unusually cruel treatment that contravenes the Eighth Amendment that has been enacted in 1983. However, the complainant’s accusation against Gray do not reflect such indifference given that in a three months time, Gray and other responsible medical personnel had met with the complainant seven times and treated his back and other medical problems. Though, failure to conduct an X-ray of to utilize other diagnostic techniques while attending to Gamble does not constitute unusual and cruel treatment, but medical malpractice, which is cognizable in the state courts (United States & Library of Congress, 2013). The issue of whether the complainant has made a constitutional claim against other petitioners (Director of Texas Corrections Department and the warden of the prisons was not separately considered by the Courts of Appeal and were, therefore, reversed and remanded. Overall, the Supreme Court had the ultimate solution that established basic rights of the inmates by the precedent-setting decision (United States & Library of Congres, 2013). First, the first ruling that was provided by the Supreme Court ruling was the basic right to medical care access. It declared that the medical needs of the inmates must never be denied. However, there are some reasons in which medical care can be denied. Such barriers are defined by the structure and security services of medicine and healthcare delivery systems. For instance, healthcare can be denied in a situation where the facility has inadequate healthcare professionals to meet the needs of the prisoners’ population or the equipments of healthcare provision are insufficient. In this case, the prisoners have to wait for treatments. Another condition that the ruling provided was on an ordered care. If the medical staff establishes that there is a needed treatment and an order for the treatment was issued and recorded, it has to be given the first priority (Wrightsman, 2006). Such a treatment cannot be hindered neither can it be countermanded. Accommodation of security concern can be understood to be in collaboration with custody staff to deliver medical care in their setting. When the custody staff orders an inmate to report to work while it was his time of bed rest as ordered by the medical staff if an exemplary to abridgement of this right. In this case, Estelle v. Gamble imposes that it is a legal duty of the custodial authority to honour the demands of medical orders. The conclusion of the ruling was based on medical judgement. Estelle v. Gamble garnered the third right, which demanded that inmates are entitled to professional judgement. In this case, they are to be assessed, evaluated or examined by appropriate medical staff specialized in the field of need. If the problem lies in the eye, a qualified optician must examine them (Peden, 2011). This ruling was made to ensure that inmates receive the best of treatment. The case of Estelle v. Gamble clearly brought progressive medical changes in the corrections departments where inmates get the best of healthcare, and co-operation between the medical and custodial substances within the prison (Peden, 2011). References Teitelbaum, J. B., & Wilensky, S. E. (2009). Essential readings in health policy and law. Sudbury, Mass: Jones and Bartlett Publishers. United States,, In Thomas, K. R., In Eig, L. M., United States., & Library of Congress. (2013). The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and interpretation : analysis of cases decided by the Supreme Court of the United States to June 28, 2012. Peden, A. H. (2011). Comparative health information management. Clifton Park, NY: Delmar Cengage Learning. Gostin, L. O. (2002). Public health law and ethics: A reader. Berkeley [u.a.: University of California Press [u.a.. Wrightsman, L. S. (2006). The Psychology of the Supreme Court. New York: Oxford University Press. Rhodes, R., Battin, M. P., & Silvers, A. (2012). Medicine and social justice: Essays on the distribution of health care. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Read More