Introduction
Places of incarceration have characteristics that have a profound impact on the behavior and health of prisoners. Being imprisoned is often the cause of increased risks and vulnerability to hazards. Moreover, inmates often experience physical and psychological problems due to their acts of isolation. All of this raises the issue of medical care in jails. Its effectiveness is often low due to the lack of equality and continuity of adequate medical services in places of detention. The reason for this is the inability of prisoners to recover completely. On the contrary, they are increasingly exposed to viruses, deadly diseases, and severe mental trauma. Thus, there is a need for close structural interaction between medical and social services in the prison and civilian sectors. Medical ethics and their principles must prevail in treating all patients, regardless of where they are held.
Prisoners’ Risk of Traumas
People in prison are often a population characterized by a constant dynamic between incarceration and the outside world. In defining ubiquitous health, the continuum of care ranges from advertising to pain relief. It requires special awareness of the need for health services to prevent and alleviate the suffering of patients of all condition groups and all ages equally (Wolff et al., 2012). The USA’s prisoners have the same right to medical care as people outside. However, the number of complaints about fictitious medical care and the simple absence of medical care continues to grow (Wolff et al., 2012). This criterion must likewise be applied to people in places of detention. Prisons can play a fundamentally important role in identifying a prisoner’s health-related needs not previously known to him and in providing appropriate medical care. Nevertheless, the continuity of care between prison and civilian health care systems must be ensured to sustain the improvements in health outcomes that have been achieved in prison throughout a person’s life.
The basic needs of people in custody, including youth offenders and migrants and people in pretrial detention, are not always sufficiently satisfied. People in captivity often need medical services and social assistance more than those outside prisons. These conditions can stem from multiple, complex situations that predate incarceration and equity, social interaction, and inclusion issues. The provision of health care in detention is governed by four basic principles enshrined in international law: an appropriate level of care, the need to address the specific needs of prisoners, the confidentiality of medical information, and the principle of non-discrimination (Wolff et al., 2012). These principles should underlie all actions taken by States in implementing health care measures for prisoners.
Moreover, over the next two decades, the importance of therapy in the USA penitentiary system has grown. Since then, the number of social therapy facilities has tripled, and the number of prisoners requiring treatment under the law has steadily increased. People in custody now also have a legal right to an individually tailored range of treatment methods (Wolff et al., 2012). It turned out, however, that this model of social therapy had its limits, and here we can mention those prisoners who, despite all the educational measures, never reached their goal of reformation. Some prisoners have interrupted their treatment, whose risk of relapse is even higher than those who have not undergone therapy.
On the other hand, it should be noted that prisoners have changed during their sentence, even without direct therapeutic intervention, despite their significant criminal record and poor prognosis, and have embarked on a law-abiding life after release. Thus, it must be recognized that the penitentiary system has a wide range of effects: expected, predictable, unexpected, and both desirable and undesirable (Wolff et al., 2012). However, the impact of the penitentiary system does not result in desirable outcomes for the general prison population. It requires elucidation of the reasons for the lack of desirable changes in educational and therapeutic processes.
Since it is a question of elucidating the general conditions and preconditions for change processes, this presupposes an understanding of evolutionary psychology as a science of human development. In the context of the penitentiary system’s normative goals, there is a danger that the prisoner will be perceived as a subject deprived of essential or an inferior issue because this circumstance requires treatment and education (Wolff et al., 2012). It contributes to a one-sided and focuses only on the negative aspects and risks. It seems more productive in this sense to shift the focus on intervening in the prisoner’s personal development process. It should range from the “goal from outside” to the “goal from within” of the personality itself and the creation of favorable conditions for its development.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is essential to note that prisoners are particularly at risk of physical and mental trauma. Regardless of their background, they are human beings who deserve treatment based on the principles of inter-prisoner ethics. When managing health services in prisons, states must ensure proper medical care. This requirement implies that health care should be supplied to inmates in circumstances similar to those of patients outside the jail. Consideration of the fundamental freedoms of inmates indicates the availability of preventive therapy and the provision of health care comparable to the public one.
Reference
Wolff H., Casillasa A., Riedera J., & Gétaza L. (2012). Health care in custody: Ethical fundamentals. BioethicaForum, 5(4), 145-151.