Raising the "civilized minimum" of pain amelioration for prisoners to avoid cruel and unusual punishment.

Rutgers law review Pub Date : 2002-01-01
James McGrath
{"title":"Raising the \"civilized minimum\" of pain amelioration for prisoners to avoid cruel and unusual punishment.","authors":"James McGrath","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This Article addresses the problems with our nation's cultural and legal prohibitions against certain pain management treatments. The practice of pain management has not kept pace with the many medical advances that have made it possible for physicians to ameliorate most pain. The Author notes that some patients are denied access to certain forms of treatments due to the mistaken belief that addiction may ensue. Additionally, some individuals are under-treated for their pain to a greater degree than are others. This is especially the case for our nation's prisoners. The Author contends that prisoners are frequently denied effective pain amelioration. He notes, however, that there has been improvement in medical treatment in general for prisoners due to court challenges based on the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Yet, due to the protection of qualified immunity given to jailers and prison health care providers, prisoners cannot bring a claim for negligence or medical malpractice, they must allege a violation of their constitutional rights, a significantly higher legal standard. Prisoners must meet a subjective test showing that there was a deliberate indifference to their medical needs that violates the protection of the Eighth Amendment. The Author concludes that because medical advances have made it possible to alleviate most pain suffering, withholding pain treatment or providing a less effective treatment is tantamount to inflicting pain and should be viewed as a violation of the Eighth Amendment.</p>","PeriodicalId":82623,"journal":{"name":"Rutgers law review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rutgers law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This Article addresses the problems with our nation's cultural and legal prohibitions against certain pain management treatments. The practice of pain management has not kept pace with the many medical advances that have made it possible for physicians to ameliorate most pain. The Author notes that some patients are denied access to certain forms of treatments due to the mistaken belief that addiction may ensue. Additionally, some individuals are under-treated for their pain to a greater degree than are others. This is especially the case for our nation's prisoners. The Author contends that prisoners are frequently denied effective pain amelioration. He notes, however, that there has been improvement in medical treatment in general for prisoners due to court challenges based on the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Yet, due to the protection of qualified immunity given to jailers and prison health care providers, prisoners cannot bring a claim for negligence or medical malpractice, they must allege a violation of their constitutional rights, a significantly higher legal standard. Prisoners must meet a subjective test showing that there was a deliberate indifference to their medical needs that violates the protection of the Eighth Amendment. The Author concludes that because medical advances have made it possible to alleviate most pain suffering, withholding pain treatment or providing a less effective treatment is tantamount to inflicting pain and should be viewed as a violation of the Eighth Amendment.

提高减轻囚犯痛苦的“文明最低限度”,以避免残酷和不寻常的惩罚。
这篇文章解决了我们国家的文化和法律禁止某些疼痛管理治疗的问题。疼痛管理的实践并没有跟上许多医学进步的步伐,这些进步使医生有可能改善大多数疼痛。提交人指出,一些病人由于错误地认为可能会上瘾而被拒绝接受某些形式的治疗。此外,有些人的疼痛治疗不足的程度比其他人更严重。对于我们国家的囚犯来说尤其如此。提交人认为,囚犯经常得不到有效的疼痛缓解。不过,他指出,由于法院以《第八修正案》禁止残忍和不寻常惩罚为基础提出质疑,囚犯的医疗待遇总体上有所改善。然而,由于狱卒和监狱保健提供者享有有条件的豁免保护,囚犯不能就疏忽或医疗事故提出索赔,他们必须指控其宪法权利受到侵犯,这是一个高得多的法律标准。囚犯必须通过一项主观测试,证明他们的医疗需求遭到蓄意漠视,违反了《第八修正案》的保护。提交人的结论是,由于医学的进步已经能够减轻大多数痛苦,因此不治疗疼痛或提供效果较差的治疗就等于造成痛苦,应被视为违反《第八修正案》。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信