Because of the ambiguous terms “adequate and inadequate,” I believe enabling a common perspective of such terms would be helpful before proceeding. According to Merriam-Webster (n.d), words associated with the term adequate are sufficient, reasonable, and good enough; and terms related to inadequate are not enough, insufficient, and not capable. Although the terms mentioned above were defined, they still fail to provide a substantial understanding of the terms adequate and inadequate. This vagueness creates space for interpretations that could be damaging and counterproductive to justice in care for individuals. Given the loose manner that the terms adequate and inadequate are defined, coupled with the possibility of taking self-serving liberties when applying such terms, I turn to the 1974 case of Estelle v. Gamble (Estelle v. Gamble, n.d.). For this case, one could argue that the healthcare provided to J.W. Gamble was inadequate based on ongoing issues with intense back pain, which contributed to his pro se complaint, where he alleged that he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment (Estelle v. Gamble, n.d.). The United States Court of Appeals would reject Gambles’ allegation suggesting that the state provided care and that it was a matter of medical judgment; therefore, health care was adequate, and there was no breach of the law (Estelle v. Gamble, n.d.)
The treatment of J.W. Gamble is not an isolated incident, as illustrated in testimonies provided by Sheron Edward (a justice involved person currently serving in a Mississippi Prison) (Punishment & Profit, 2021). Like Gamble, Edwards sustained a significant leg injury and has received medical treatment for that injury (Punishment & Profit, 2021). However, given the minimalist approach to treatment, issues with his leg continued to be exacerbated (Punishment & Profit, 2021).
Considering the ambiguity in the terms adequate and inadequate, threads of common sense, compassion, and consideration should be woven into the blanket of justice that governed the 1974 case mentioned above and contemporary cases with similar circumstances. It assumed that the Estelle vs. Gamble has served as a case study to argue the management of – adequate – health care in prisons. However, one can argue that this precedence could enable space for a “For Profit Correctional Facility” (FPCF) to function. During her appearance on Punishment & Profit: Healthcare: Punishment & Profit, Marcy Croft suggested (Punishment & Profit, 2021) that it is a common understanding that inadequate health care, extreme violence, staff and leadership neglect are some of the prevalent attributes of an FPCF. Further, she alluded that ‘these facilities are less concerned with the health and welfare of justice in care persons and more concerned with making a profit for their stakeholders’ (Punishment & Profit, 2021). That said, through a legal lens, most state and federal government correctional facilities are providing adequate healthcare to incarcerated individuals. However, I believe we need to ask ourselves the question, “Is the healthcare provided to the incarcerated effective?”
Adequate. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary. Retrieved on January 3, 2023, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adequate
Inadequate. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary. Retrieved on January 3, 2023, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inadequate
Estelle v. Gamble. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved on January 3, 2023, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1976/75-929
Punishment & Profit. (2021) Healthcare: Punishment & Profit. Retrieved on January 3, 2023, from https://thegreenespace.org/watch/punishment-profit-healthcare/
Leave a Reply