The right to medical treatment

Full Answer Section Arguments against granting such rights There are a few arguments against granting inmates the right to medical treatment. One argument is that it would be too expensive. However, I believe that the cost of providing inmates with medical care is outweighed by the benefits of preventing unnecessary suffering and death. Another argument is that inmates do not deserve to receive medical care because they have committed crimes. However, I believe that everyone deserves basic medical care, regardless of their past actions. Do inmates have a right to advanced treatment for medical ailments which can be a financial burden on society? This is a complex question, and there is no easy answer. On the one hand, I believe that inmates should have access to the same quality of medical care as is available to the general public. This includes access to advanced treatment, even if it is expensive. On the other hand, I also believe that society should not have to bear the entire cost of providing inmates with advanced treatment. I believe that a compromise solution would be to require inmates to pay for advanced treatment out of their own pocket, or through insurance, if they have it. However, I also believe that the government should provide financial assistance to inmates who cannot afford to pay for advanced treatment. What is deliberate indifference toward a prisoner's health? Deliberate indifference toward a prisoner's health is when prison officials know that an inmate has a serious medical need, but they fail to provide treatment or take steps to prevent harm. In the case of the inmate with stomach pain, the prison officials showed deliberate indifference by failing to take his complaints seriously and by delaying treatment. Did the officers show deliberate indifference towards this inmate's health problem? Why do you think so? I believe that the officers in this case did show deliberate indifference towards the inmate's health problem. They ignored his complaints for several weeks, and they only took action when his condition became critical. This suggests that they did not believe that his condition was serious, or that they did not care about his health. Would Estelle v. Gamble (1976) support the inmate's case? Why? What are the points of similarity and difference in both cases? Estelle v. Gamble (1976) is a landmark Supreme Court case that established the standard for determining whether prison officials have violated an inmate's Eighth Amendment right to medical care. The Court ruled that prison officials must provide inmates with "adequate medical care", which means that the care must be reasonably adequate to meet the inmate's needs. The case of the inmate with stomach pain is similar to Estelle v. Gamble in that the prison officials failed to provide the inmate with adequate medical care. The difference is that the inmate in Estelle v. Gamble did not suffer any serious harm as a result of the inadequate care. The inmate in the case we are discussing did suffer serious harm, as he was diagnosed with cancer and had to have surgery. I believe that the inmate in this case would have a strong case against the prison. The case of Estelle v. Gamble would support his case, as the Supreme Court ruled that prison officials must provide inmates with "adequate medical care". The inmate in this case did not receive adequate medical care, and he suffered serious harm as a result.

Sample Answer Do inmates should be granted the right to medical treatment? Yes, I believe that inmates should be granted the right to medical treatment. The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, and this includes denying inmates access to necessary medical care. Inmates are still human beings, and they have a right to basic medical care, just like everyone else. The specific rights that inmates should have with regard to medical treatment include:

• The right to be seen by a doctor within a reasonable time of complaining of a medical problem.
• The right to receive the same quality of medical care as is available to the general public.
• The right to refuse treatment, except in cases where the treatment is necessary to prevent serious harm or death.