Patient Treatment

Insufficient Female Healthcare in an Otherwise Male Model 

Women have healthcare needs distinct from those of men; yet, there is no difference in care for incarcerated women when compared to men. Yet, as previously stated, because the prison system was originally designed for males, its healthcare system is not suitable for female members. Even as the number of women behind bars increased by 30% between 2000 to 2013, in comparison to the increase of males by 13%, the structure has not changed to provide women with the care guaranteed to them by the 1976 Supreme Court case Estelle v. Gamble (3). The court declared that “deliberate indifference to [an incarcerated person’s] serious medical needs” was in clear juxtaposition to the Eighth Amendment’s ban of cruel and unusual punishment (3). Incarcerated members of society are unable to seek external treatment or receive outside benefits; it becomes the state’s responsibility to care for its incarcerated population. Even so, the system does not provide comfort to those within it; several gaps fail to be filled and the healthcare received by its members is limited, especially by women. Nadia Escobar Salinas, coauthor of a healthcare piece in Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, reminds us that:

“People in prisons are deprived of their freedom as part of a criminal conviction, but that should not mean they are also deprived of their right to health and preventive interventions.”

Incarcerated women are at higher risk of illness, such as cervical cancer, and require preventative testing. Often, women were not provided with access to vaccines, such as to HPV, or treatment to illness, such as Hepatitis C. Beyond even this, access to reproductive care, such as birth control or abortion, is a complicated process, denying women the right to control their bodies. Yet, an overarching problem, is the method of offering health care to incarcerated women; prison officials overlook the needs of women, regardless of the responsibility placed upon them.

Stacy McGruder, who has been in and out of prison in Santa Clara, California, describes female inmates as “not [being] looked at as people. They’re just a letter, a number, a piece of paper. So people treat them like a piece of paper: They crumple them up and throw them away.” She adds that its rare for a woman to be truly healthy; it would require a combination of proper medical treatment and respect from correctional staff.

Justice involved women rely solely on officers and workers within the facility to provide them with proper treatment; yet, many women report mistreatment by
employees and withheld information or opportunities. One might even argue that there is agreement among officials that women are less able to make decisions about their health than men. Simple, necessary items, such as tampons, pads and ibuprofen, were once withheld from women, forcing them to be purchased. Guaranteed access to such items and other required health care will hopefully, not only treat conditions, but improve the mental wellbeing of justice involved women. By decreasing anxiety over access, it hopefully could increase positive outcomes for women.

The mistreatment of patients is an indirect result of lack of value for the quality of care the institution provides by hiring inadequate health care staff. Less competent physicians and nurses are less able to accurately treat patients. Beyond employees, without incentive, correctional institutions neglect the needs of women, due to lack of funding and inadequate policies. Health care is provided by private, profit making corporations in 20 states. Yet, research does not prove that its services are superior; in fact, care can be worse.

The types of care withheld from incarcerated women varies. Approximately 70 percent of incarcerated women have been convicted of nonviolent crimes, most commonly property and drug related offenses (Sufrin, Kolbi- Molinas and Roth 2015). Yet, according to The Sentencing Project, only 1 in 5 women within state prisons and 1 in 8 women in federal prisons receive treatment for substance abuse. Again, it is made clear that women are not receiving necessary treatment, when, clearly, there is a benefit to society. It seems obvious that there is a relationship between recidivism and health care. Yet, we are left to wonder, who will recognize that by offering support to a vulnerable population, will help to improve its outcomes? Steven Rosenburg reports that Washington state has made an attempt. In 2003, they provided 30 million dollars to substance use treatment and compared the treated and untreated populations. They found that for every dollar spent on treatment, $1.16 was saved in criminal justice costs and the average health care cost of the population decreased by 2.2%. By investing in this community, it benefitted the criminal justice system and health care costs by the state. By implementing further policies, healthcare can be further expanded and work towards re-working the criminal justice system. If providing necessary treatment to justice involved women isn’t enough to argue to society, statistics can help to prove the point.

Improvements to women’s health care within the criminal justice system need to surpass policy making. Standards of care need to be enforced. Correctional officers and employees need to reevaluate their treatment and medical staff must be competent and willing to provide all necessary treatment. Yet, banning male staff in female institutions is not the answer. Instead, it can be an opportunity to show respectful relationships across genders.

Sources: