XPost: sci.med.diseases.lyme, alt.support.child-protective-services,   
   alt.support.autism   
   From: johncwirsen@mchsi.com   
      
   You are full of shit.   
   Inmates get better medical care in the state of Missouri than working   
   citizens who have committed no crimes.   
      
   And coming from a family filled with law enforcement, and one LE of over 50   
   years, I resent your remarks about how they operate.   
   It's hogwash.   
      
      
   "kathleen"  wrote in message   
   news:1111095050.955861.131750@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...   
   These questions need to be asked about American   
   prisons in general.  They get notoriously bad healthcare   
   and dental care.  If you have a crown that needs to be   
   finished, the dentists will offer you to have the tooth   
   pulled.   
      
   The inmates die of HIV and no one cares, 85% of the   
   kitchen workers are HIV infected, and tuberculosis   
   is not uncommon.   
      
   More than half the prisoners have no teeth.  The only   
   medical care they get is Seroquel, mostly.  If you are   
   injured, the medical staff laughs, and gives no treatment.   
      
   No one cares if inmates don't survive.  Think about it.   
   They don't care if you have doctor's orders or orders from   
   the court to be treated for anything.  They deny you medical   
   care.  Period.   
      
   They don't report assaults to anyone.  If one prisoner   
   attacks another, they turn a blind eye, and record that it   
   was a fight, even if it was not.  They encourage the aggressors,   
   because the guards enjoy these fights.  The mentality behind   
   that is that no one better the hell dare complain to any   
   authorities about what goes on in the prisons, and if they   
   think you might complain, they see to it, that you are   
   not protected from the real psychos there.   
      
   In other words, they use the other violent prisoners as   
   an intimidation and punitive technique.   
      
   This is not conjecture or hearsay.   
      
   Kathleen   
      
   georgia wrote:   
   > Washington Post   
   >   
   > >From the Medics, Unhealthy Silence   
   >   
   > By Stephen N. Xenakis   
   > Sunday, February 6, 2005; Page B04   
   >   
   > The recent confirmation hearings for attorney general nominee Alberto   
   > R. Gonzales and the trials of the soldiers accused of misconduct at   
   Abu   
   > Ghraib have once again brought to the fore questions about the use of   
   > torture in our war on terrorism. But one aspect that is never   
   mentioned   
   > -- one I believe is essential to consider -- are the actions or, more   
   > to the point, the apparent inaction of medical personnel at both   
   > Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.   
   >   
   > Detention facilities like these typically have fully staffed clinics   
   > with primary care physicians, nurses and a host of other support   
   > personnel to treat American soldiers as well as detainees. Their   
   common   
   > duty -- from corpsmen with basic medical skills training to   
   physicians   
   > with leadership positions -- is to provide care according to high   
   > standards of medical practice to all who need it and, of course, to   
   > report any signs of physical or psychological abuse.   
   >   
   >   
   > The Post's opinion and commentary section runs every Sunday.   
   >   
   > · Outlook Section   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   > _____Free E-mail Newsletters_____   
   >   
   > · Today's Headlines & Columnists   
   > See a Sample  |  Sign Up Now   
   > · Breaking News Alerts   
   > See a Sample  |  Sign Up Now   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   > As a physician holding the title of brigadier general by the time I   
   > retired in 1998, I directed major medical support efforts during the   
   > 1991 Gulf War and have seen the Army leadership up close. So, as the   
   > scandals at Abu Ghraib in Iraq and Guantanamo in Cuba unfolded, I   
   > wondered why we had heard so little from the medics. When faced with   
   > the twin pressures of performing their military duty and providing   
   > treatment, did the staffs at these facilities turn a blind eye to the   
   > physical and mental torture inflicted on the prisoners, or perhaps   
   even   
   > collude with interrogators? There are few other explanations for why   
   > they didn't report suspicious findings from the examinations of the   
   > detainees. Unless, of course, those reports were suppressed.   
   >   
   > I've also wondered whether the senior medical leadership of the Army,   
   > Navy and Air Force knew of the abuses -- and whether their reports   
   > could have been concealed.   
   >   
   > My growing concern has been reinforced by an appalling case of glib   
   > reasoning, in which the office of the deputy assistant secretary of   
   > defense for health affairs, as reported in a recent issue of the New   
   > England Journal of Medicine, has taken the position that the medical   
   > personnel at these facilities had not breached the Hippocratic oath   
   > because there was not a recognized doctor-patient relationship. The   
   > NEJM reported that the deputy assistant secretary endorsed the view   
   > that some of the medics supporting interrogators in Iraq and   
   Guantanamo   
   > were operating outside the bounds of the doctor-patient relationship   
   > and were thus not required to abide by accepted ethical guidelines.   
   >   
   > What precisely does this mean? That the prisoners were not being   
   billed   
   > by the medical personnel? That there were no neat files, none of   
   those   
   > signed privacy forms known as HIPAAs? Don't worry, the Defense   
   > Department seems to be saying, being a military physician doesn't   
   mean   
   > that you need to stick to the time-honored maxim of "First, do no   
   > harm"?   
   >   
   > Indeed, the same article noted that the office contended that the   
   > legitimate objective of fighting terrorism trumps the ethical   
   > responsibility of the healing practitioner. In other words, "the ends   
   > justify the means": A few brutalized prisoners is a small price to   
   pay   
   > for protecting the citizens of the United States.   
   >   
   > According to this line of reasoning, military medical personnel   
   should   
   > put a higher priority on fighting the war against terrorism than on   
   > abiding by the recognized ethical and moral principles of their   
   > profession. Moreover, no worries about potential malpractice suits   
   need   
   > cloud their day; they can feel protected and relieved of the duty to   
   > exercise personal and individual responsibility.   
   >   
   > That's not how I was trained. I attended both college and medical   
   > school on Army scholarships during the turbulent years of Vietnam and   
   > the My Lai massacre, with cynicism over the practices in our military   
   > echoing in my ears. Fifteen years later, in 1989 and 1990, I attended   
   > the Army War College as a medical corps colonel. At all these   
   > institutions, clear parameters for conduct were laid out. The war   
   > colleges teach senior officers -- future generals and admirals --   
   that   
   > commanders are responsible for the ethical and moral climate of their   
   > units. They are also responsible for what the men and women who serve   
   > under them do and don't do.   
   >   
   > There is no escaping the fact that responsibility for the conduct of   
   > the medics at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib rests with the senior   
   > leadership of the medical departments. This leadership faced tough   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)