Prisoners paid £750,000 for 'cold turkey' in jail

[ViolentPanda]

What if it was cigarettes instead of heroin? Would the claim still stand?

While nicotine withdrawal often causes neurosis it very rarely causes psychosis. The same can't be said for withdrawal from such substances as heroin, cocaine or amphetamine.

 

[Loki]

The suspicion has to remain that some were made to go cold turkey as punishment: an inhumane punishment.

Yes, presumably in prisons run by governors of the Anne Widdescombe persuasion.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Not sure what the prison service could do in the circumstances. The prisoners were convicted & sentenced. At the time of sentencing they were addicts. The prison service did not have the resources available to treat their addiction. What was the prison service supposed to do, refuse to incarcerate, release the prisoners until they had overcome their addiction, provide them with drugs..??

What used to happen was that they'd be placed directly into a prison's medical wing if staff weren't available at induction, same as would happen with a non-addict inmate undergoing medical treatment or observation.

As with many other issues at the time this happened (which still happen too, from what I've been told), everything at a prison is contingent not only on inmate cooperation, but on the cooperation of the POA. If the membership in a nick decide they don't want to secure the medical facilities then treatment doesn't take place.

 

[Cobbles]

I see what you're saying but I guess you provide methadone.

Also some of them were on methadone treatment and they stopped that straight off. If they were alcoholics, they'd have died. Then there would have been a right old furore.

An interesting point - do prison inmates with alcohol adiction get alcohol substitute or do they just have to dry out?

 

[dolly's gal]

An interesting point - do prison inmates with alcohol adiction get alcohol substitute or do they just have to dry out?

it would be incredibly dangerous if they had a severe alcohol dependence to leave them without any medical supervision. saying that, ive no idea if it happens or not! it probably does like

 

[Roadkill]

They certainly shouldn't have been denied treatment. Addicts need medical attention, and if they weren't given that then it's the prison service's fault.

Tbh, though, I'm not sure I agree with giving them compensation.

 

[Wintermute]

i guess it depends on whether you think treatment for an illness is a human right

It concerns me to think that there are people who don't, and angers me that I pay for them. Although yeah I agree with Roadkill - I'm not sure what they hoped to achieve by chucking money at them.

 

[dolly's gal]

hm, so they shouldn't have been given compensation because they were heroin addicts?

 

[ViolentPanda]

An interesting point - do prison inmates with alcohol adiction get alcohol substitute or do they just have to dry out?

They're usually weaned off using benzodiapine injections (rather than tablets which have a high "market value" inside).

 

[ViolentPanda]

They certainly shouldn't have been denied treatment. Addicts need medical attention, and if they weren't given that then it's the prison service's fault.

Tbh, though, I'm not sure I agree with giving them compensation.

From what I can make out the "compensation" is down to the Prison Service not fulfilling it's own operational obligations and requirements to the inmates, rather than for the suffering per se.

 

[jackdoor]

....and if they have-mods please bin.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6146678.stm

Drug addicts argue their human rights are being infringed by being forced to go cold turkey when they are admitted to prison.

Now without anyone mentioning its 'PC gawn mad' what are peoples thoughts on this?

Its a case of medical negligence only works out at just over £3000 each.

 

[pdxm]

If you are a herion addict, a self-inflicted condition and steal to fund your self inflicted habit then cold-turkey is an occupational hazard IMHO. I fail to see why you should get any NHS treatment or 4 grand of public money for your foolishness

 

[Plato1983]

They choose to do the drugs they did, then they stole/mugged/whatever else to fund it.

If they wanted to do drugs, they should have thought about the issue of if they could fund it before resorting to crime, if you want to spend your money on drugs from your paycheck, go ahead, but don't rob and hurt people to do it and then moan and bitch about it when you go to jail.

What a waste of our money, there are so many more pople who could have benefited from it than these people.

 

[TAE]

Heard Anne Widdecombe on this yesterday.

"The prison service is not a drug rehabilitation service. If that's what it takes to get people to quit, so be it".

Anne Widdecombe is a cunt, therefore it's bang out of order.

As far as I know, sudden complete withdraw can be lethal.

 

[likesfish]

heroin withdrawal won't kill you (your just feel like you want to die ) alcohol withdrawl can and has killed alcoholics
thought prison service policy was a 7 day detox not exactly pleasant but not torture.

 

[Wintermute]

They choose to do the drugs they did, then they stole/mugged/whatever else to fund it.

If they wanted to do drugs, they should have thought about the issue of if they could fund it before resorting to crime, if you want to spend your money on drugs from your paycheck, go ahead, but don't rob and hurt people to do it and then moan and bitch about it when you go to jail.

What a waste of our money, there are so many more pople who could have benefited from it than these people.

1. There's nothing in the article that states these people were in for anything drugs-related. The assumption - unless you know something we don't - that they must be funding their drug use through crime was entirely yours.

2. They weren't moaning and bitching about being in jail. They sued the Prison Service for clinical negligence in relation to its drug treatment programme.

3. I agree. Throwing money at it doesn't appear to do anyone much good. But we live in a compensation culture.

 

[ViolentPanda]

If you are a herion addict, a self-inflicted condition and steal to fund your self inflicted habit then cold-turkey is an occupational hazard IMHO. I fail to see why you should get any NHS treatment or 4 grand of public money for your foolishness

Do you think the same about your colleagues who pickle their livers?

Do you believe they should be denied treatment or a possible transplant because their problem is "self-inflicted"?

 

[ViolentPanda]

They choose to do the drugs they did, then they stole/mugged/whatever else to fund it.

Nice assumption. What leads you to assume that though, your own prejudices or hard fact?

I'm thinking it must be the former.

If they wanted to do drugs, they should have thought about the issue of if they could fund it before resorting to crime, if you want to spend your money on drugs from your paycheck, go ahead, but don't rob and hurt people to do it and then moan and bitch about it when you go to jail.

Wow. Even more prejudice masquerading as comment.
Exactly how did you get access to the records of the inmates involved?

I ask because it's the only way you could know what those people were in prison for, rather than just relying on your own prejudices to inform you.

What a waste of our money, there are so many more pople who could have benefited from it than these people.

Strike three. More prejudice. Please tell me what you mean by "these people".

Did you actually bother to read the article, or is this another case (as on so many threads) of your ideology operating your mouth rather than your brain doing so?

 

[ViolentPanda]

heroin withdrawal won't kill you (your just feel like you want to die ) alcohol withdrawl can and has killed alcoholics
thought prison service policy was a 7 day detox not exactly pleasant but not torture.

It was at the time in question, along with discretion to prolong detox if necessary.

 

[Roadkill]

hm, so they shouldn't have been given compensation because they were heroin addicts?

Well tbh part of me agrees with pdxm. We don't know what they did to get banged up and can't assume it was drugs-related, but I can't help thinking that if you're going to do the sort of things that get you put inside then having to go cold turkey on whatever addiction you have is something of an 'occupational hazard.'

I do think they should have had treatment and if the prison service has failed to fulfil its duty of medical care towards people then something should be done to ensure that it doesn't do so in future. They should spend the money on that rather than paying compensation IMO.

I don't see what is achieved by paying out compensation, and I don't agree with the culture that seems to think that compensation should be paid for every cock-up.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Well tbh part of me agrees with pdxm. We don't know what they did to get banged up and can't assume it was drugs-related, but I can't help thinking that if you're going to do the sort of things that get you put inside then having to go cold turkey on whatever addiction you have is something of an 'occupational hazard.'

I do think they should have had treatment and if the prison service has failed to fulfil its duty of medical care towards people then something should be done to ensure that it doesn't do so in future. They should spend the money on that rather than paying compensation IMO.

I don't see what is achieved by paying out compensation, and I don't agree with the culture that seems to think that compensation should be paid for every cock-up.

You're looking at the issue from the wrong direction mho, roadie.

Why do you think the Home Office coughed up? My (informed) suspicion is that they did it for the same reason they always "fold" in matters of this kind: Because paying out a relatively small sum now "innoculates" them against larger claims at a later date.

Ultimately it isn't a question of desert, it's a question of minimising loss.

 

[dolly's gal]

I don't see what is achieved by paying out compensation, and I don't agree with the culture that seems to think that compensation should be paid for every cock-up.

fine. if it's compensation as a concept you disagree with then fine. but a number of people seemed to be implying that they shouldn't have been given money because they were heroin addicts. which i would have to disagree with.

 

[Roadkill]

You're looking at the issue from the wrong direction mho, roadie.

Why do you think the Home Office coughed up? My (informed) suspicion is that they did it for the same reason they always "fold" in matters of this kind: Because paying out a relatively small sum now "innoculates" them against larger claims at a later date.

Ultimately it isn't a question of desert, it's a question of minimising loss.

I think you're probably right, VP. But IMO the reason the Home Office paid up is that they couldn't be sure the court wouldn't award them compensation far greater than they actually received. Which I think is wrong.

fine. if it's compensation as a concept you disagree with then fine. but a number of people seemed to be implying that they shouldn't have been given money because they were heroin addicts. which i would have to disagree with

I don't think they don't deserve compensation because they're heroin addicts, but I also don't see why, if you're going to commit a crime that gets you sent down, you shouldn't accept the risk of having to go cold turkey.

It's not actually because they were smackheads that I object to them claiming compensation, but more because they were prisoners. I'm not about to claim that prisoners should have no right at all to compensation, but I can't really muster that much sympathy for someone who has to do without drugs for a bit inside.

I'm being rather illiberal about this, ain't I?

 

[Wintermute]

fine. if it's compensation as a concept you disagree with then fine. but a number of people seemed to be implying that they shouldn't have been given money because they were heroin addicts. which i would have to disagree with.

Yeah - it's not about that. It's the money that we paid in and it shouldn't go to one individual to spend as they wish. If it's paying for something specific - like, say, a rehab programme, then fine; but they'll probably be able to get that anyway now, through the usual channels. The money should have stayed in the system.

 

[Giles]

These people do not deserve compensation. They are in prison, guilty of reasonably serious crimes.

Why should the rest of us pay for their treatment?

If you had conducted an instant opinion poll on this, I *know* the majority would have said "no compensation".

Take drugs. Don't take drugs. Your choice.

If you do, and then end up by your own actions somewhere where you can't get more drugs, why is that anyone else's problem except yours?

I don't understand this whole business of the Home Office or whoever having to do what a court says. Who runs the country, anyway? Some out-of-touch judge? Lets have some people power, I say!

Giles..

 

[Roadkill]

I don't understand this whole business of the Home Office or whoever having to do what a court says. Who runs the country, anyway? Some out-of-touch judge? Lets have some people power, I say!

The legislature makes law; the judiciary interprets it. It is not up to government, therefore, to tell government what to do, as John reid is making a habit of trying to do.

Part of the problem with the British parliamentary system is that governments with massive majorities can get pretty much whatever they like through, with not a great deal of scrutiny. As a result, a lot of badly-thought-out law ends up on the statute books.

That's not to see judges always make the right decisions - far from it, especially given what out-of-touch, upper-class twits many of them are - but their independence to make decisions within the law is one of the basic tenets of the constitution. Judicial independence, indeed, is a basic component of any democracy.

 

[detective-boy]

Still, congratulations to them for getting the money off the government.

Yeah, Tony and Gordon are paying personally ... not the taxpayer ... Oh, no!

This issue raises very complex questions. Would they have received treatment had they not been prisoners? If not, then why should they be in a better position inside than out? If so, then they should have continued to receive it inside. There certainly should not be a situation in which someone receives better treatment having offended and been imprisoned than someone who has not but, equally, there should not be a situation in which a prisoner is treated worse / differently than they would have been on the outside.

 

[likesfish]

home office failed to follow its own rules.
if the policy was make the junkies cluck fair enough but it was'nt

 

[Thora]

There certainly should not be a situation in which someone receives better treatment having offended and been imprisoned than someone who has not

But surely that is the case for a lot of prisoners at the moment? Many young people have better access to educational services in YOI than they did on the outside, young single mothers probably get better access to services and support in specialist mother and baby units than they did on their own on some council estate.

Things like having no fixed address can make it very difficult for people to get access to medical care or treatment for addiction - so why shouldn't that be provided in prison?

 

[trashpony]

But surely that is the case for a lot of prisoners at the moment? Many young people have better access to educational services in YOI than they did on the outside, young single mothers probably get better access to services and support in specialist mother and baby units than they did on their own on some council estate.

Things like having no fixed address can make it very difficult for people to get access to medical care or treatment for addiction - so why shouldn't that be provided in prison?

Indeed.

Also it seems according to the news story and the man I heard interviewed on PM, they stopped providing methadone to people who were on treatment programmes.

Presumably they assess your medical condition when you are incarcerated. So if someone has an addiction, they will need treatment in the same way that someone will continue to receive any other medication they need.