Preventive Health Care in Prison

Paper Summary:

This paper examines the history of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and how it has evolved inside the judicial system into the right to preventive healthcare within the prison setting. The author studies diseases such as viral hepatitis and how the justice system has dealt with this disease. This paper discusses human papillomavirus (HPV) and how it can be compared to viral hepatitis types B and C. The author concludes that the standard of deliberate indifference to health care needs in women's prisons requires the United State's justice system to immunize women prisoners to prevent the spread of HPV and cervical cancer. The paper argues that it is now the obligation of the Federal Bureau of Prisons to add to the "Clinical Practice Guidelines" a requirement for mandatory testing for HPV and for immunization with Gardasil for those who are at high risk of HPV.

Table of Contents:
Introduction
The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution
Preventive Healthcare in the General Population
Preventive Healthcare for Federal and State Correctional Populations
Congress' Response to the Threat of Infectious Disease in Prison and its Economic Impact
Guidelines for Federal Correctional Facilities but Just Proposed for States to Adopt
Correctional Facilities Continue to Lack Adequate Preventive Care, Leading to Lawsuits
The Importance of Preventive Healthcare for Infectious Disease Using a Viral Hepatitis
Hepatitis
Human Papillomavirus Infection
Demographics of Human Papillomavirus Infection
Demographics of Human Papillomavirus Infection in Prison
Public Health Responses to Human Papillomavirus Infection
Applying Viral Hepatitis Approaches to HPV
Conclusion

From the Paper:

"In "Ruiz v. Johnson", a group of inmates had sued the Director of the Texas Department of Corrections. The plaintiffs alleged that conditions in the correctional facilities violated Eight Amendment protections. Conditions were so extreme that the United States joined in as a plaintiff, against the defendant's resistance. The case includes commentary from Dr. Robertson, an expert in the trial. He stated that he saw two cases of "potentially preventable" cancers where the patients received delay in diagnosis and treatment, causing a negative prognosis. The defendants argued that the National Commission on Correctional Health Care (NCCHC) accredited them and therefore their practices were constitutional."

Sample of Sources Used:

• Model Penal Code 1.02(2)(C) (1962).
• Cal. Penal Code 1170(a)(1) (West 2000).
• Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584, 595 (1977)
• Judith Greene and Kevin Pranis, Part I: Growth Trends and Recent Research, available at http://www.wpaonline.org/institute/hardhit/part1.htm (last visited March 14, 2007).
• U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/p05.pdf (last visited March 14, 2007).

More papers on Preventive Health Care in Prison:

• Analytical Essay # 109382 : "Health Threats in Turkey"
• Term Paper # 95621 : "Dental Care in the Future"
• Essay # 26617 : "Milwaukee County House of Corrections"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: