[vorpalhex]

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).

[1auralynn]

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.

[richbell]

> 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.

[AaronFriel]

Did you see the "against their will" portion?

[vorpalhex]

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.

[richbell]

> 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

[vorpalhex]

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]

> 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]

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.

[rsj_hn]

> The vast majority of prisoners are not dangerous.

Wow, what a divergence from reality.

The vast majority of prisoners are dangerous. This myth that the US incarcerates prisoners not because we have a huge criminal class, but because we just like locking people up, is one of the most inane talking points on the left, one easily disproven with a few seconds of googling, and yet people keep repeating it.

So here is the few seconds of googling:

https://aci.az.gov/sites/default/files/media/PrisonersinAriz...

Percentage of criminals in AZ that have committed violent felonies or are repeat felony offenders: 94.2%

of these, the number who are considered "violent offenders": 65.4%

One of the many mistakes made by people is looking only at Federal statistics (About 10% of all inmates are held by the Federal government, the rest are held by state governments). In general, many people have a very difficult time grasping federalism, and don't understand that the Federal legal code focuses on interstate offenses and other offenses that states can't handle. E.g. not things like violence or robbery, but say, embezzlement, trafficking across state lines, securities fraud, etc. The FBI/Justice Department do not get involved in most violent crime.

The next part of the deception is to look only at Federal prison statistics and say "hey, there's not a lot murderers here -- we are mostly locking people up for trafficking things across state lines!" -- and just hope that your listener is too unaware to say "wait a minute -- are you giving me federal prison statistics in a debate about crime? What is wrong with you?!"

I would also note the delicious irony that the same people who complain about "white collar crime" (e.g. property crime) being given a less stringent sentence than "blue collar crime" (e.g. violence) are the most vocal ones insisting that we shouldn't be incarcerating non-violent offenders.

You have to decide whether robbery/fraud is something that deserves a prison sentence and then be consistent -- not calling for prison for some CEO when you are in corporate-hating mode, and then demanding release of non-violent offenders when you are weeping after watching Les Miserables.

[Buttons840]

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.

[lelanthran]

> 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.

Who's morals? Yours? His? What makes your morals better than his? Why do you think your bar for "morally just" is the correct one?

Arguing morals is pointless - it's all subjective.

The best you can do is argue whether the rules are being adhered to or not.

Second best is to argue for addition or removal of rules.

[jimbob45]

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.

[richbell]

I agree, but I do not think "it's more convenient for the prison" is a legitimate reason, which is seemingly the case here.

[FireBeyond]

> 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".

[caconym_]

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.

[kadoban]

> 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.

[evanwise]

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]

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]

> 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]

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]

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]

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.

[evanwise]

Nothing in this contradicts what I said. Prisoners have a right to informed consent which can be removed in certain circumstances, specifically to ensure the safety of staff or other inmates. You made a much broader categorical claim that prisoners simply do not have the right to informed consent and you are wrong. For example, here is a document from Tennessee outlining the scenarios in which an inmate can and cannot refuse care: https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/correction/documents/113-5...

I'd suggest doing some actual research into the relevant case law, e.g. Washington v Harper, instead of just googling until you find something that can be misinterpreted to support your position. While prison administrators have wide leeway to force treatment they are still required to show that it's necessary, either for safety reasons or because the treatment was mandated as part of the sentence of the inmate.

[FireBeyond]

> 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.

[zeendo]

Do you understand that there's a difference between legal and moral?

[evanwise]

He's also just talking out of his ass. Prisoners have informed consent rights just like you and I do.

[taco_emoji]

I'm gonna go ahead and assume your wife wasn't induced against her will