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.
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.
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:
> 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.
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.
> 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.
Yeah, I'd guess if they're too far from a hospital to be safe it'd be best to keep them at a hospital until the baby is born. They might not need an entire ward for that though. Just handcuffing them to a bed and posting a guard outside their room should be fine for most inmates. Even that won't be cheap, but it shouldn't be too often someone pregnant ends up behind bars.
The analog would be forcing him to see a specialist against his will. Another poster pointed out that the hospital said they were required to do this to protect one of the mother's health.
I don't know whether that was true, but then again, I don't know whether anything said in this story is true or not.
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).
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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).
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.
We're a few interactions into this debate. I want to clarify, are we discussing what is legal or what is morally just? Because those are far from the same. I personally would rather discuss what is morally justifiable, since that is a more important standard.
It is important to mention that inducing birth before term increases the incidence of respiratory problems in the baby (beyond the abhorrent ethical issues).
There are legitimate reasons to need to induce labor (certainly not in every case). It’s not performed for exclusively trivial reasons like circumcision for example.
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".
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
> receive vaccinations to prevent the spread of disease
Here, my county and the one adjacent have two Sheriffs who are twin brothers, and are vehemently anti mask, etc. (Actually, one has since lost his bid for re-election).
Their attitude to the jails under their control was to _refuse_ to allow inmates to mask, even in dorm holding cells, and to refuse to vaccinate any prisoner against COVID who was in custody.