In yesterday’s news: british prisoners have sued the government, and received monetary compensation for being forced to go through heroin withdrawals when taken off their methadone whilst in jail. this has caused quite a stir, particularly at the allegations that the prisoners had their human rights violated.

Former Conservative prisons minister Ann Widdecombe said the settlement was “an insult to every victim and every law abiding person”.

“As far as I’m concerned there is no human right to continue a drug habit when you go to prison.”

and at first blush, this claim *does* seem rather ludicrous. after all, if you don’t want to suffer the pains of withdrawals, a) don’t get addicted to illegal drugs in the first place and b) definitely don’t get your ass thrown in jail. there is little public sympathy for the drug-addled heroin user who lands himself behind bars, because as a society we’ve chosen to criminalise addiction – and ignore that this directly contributes to forcing addicts into other crime to support their habit. but that’s the way the law currently stands, and therefore, as the saying goes, “don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time”. jail is not meant to be a rehab facility, and tough luck to those who end up in the slammer and can’t get their fix. right?

but hold your indignation just a minute, because on further examination, it’s not quite so cut and dry. the claim of “human rights violation” has real teeth – and that’s not such a bad thing because it protects us all. consider, for example, the nhs. the rationale behind socialised medicine, and the reason all residents of britain receive free health care courtesy of the national health service, is because we support the belief that access to medical care is a human right. it is available to everyone who lives in the u.k., free of any eligibility criteria or financial obligation, because there is a common belief that caring for one’s personal health is not a luxury tied to a socio-economic class system. it is an *entitlement* of being human. it is not a “freedom” which one can be stripped of simply by virtue of having their physical space restricted. it is not something which can be either voluntarily or involuntarily surrendered. it is not even something limited to the boundaries of great britain. it is a *right* of one’s being as much as breathing. and that’s why we’ve decided to legally protect access to health care for all, regardless of personal circumstance. you can be rich, homeless, or incarcerated – and you’re still *entitled* to the same medical treatment.

“Prisoners have the right to receive exactly the same type and standard of healthcare in prison as they would receive in the community,”

And this is as clear as it gets. while we have decided we have the right to deprive criminals of their liberty, we have no right to deprive them of needed treatment. we’re not allowed to shortchange them of addiction help just because they’re in jail – because it’s the same entitlement you or i have as non-criminals. if we start imposing differing criteria or quality for prisoners, we must re-examine the entire philosophy the system is based upon. and that would spell bad news for those of us who’ve ever been unemployed, or ill with what could be considered “pre-existing conditions”. if we start changing the principle of “equal access to all”, it is no longer a human right, but a conditional priviledge. i’ve lived under that system for most of my life in the states – and I wouldn’t wish it on anyone. the fear of not being able to access care is a horrible feeling.

so we should be thankful for this decision – because it means someone is still watching out for the interests of even those whom society views as repugnant. those same safeguards that protect the human right to proper health, protect all of us. and for that, i am personally extremely grateful.

Like this post

Unlike

addiction, treatment, settlement, prisoners' rights