NCJ Number
41488
Journal
Corrections Magazine Volume: 3 Issue: 1 Dated: (MARCH 1977) Pages: 47-48
Date Published
1977
Length
2 pages
Annotation
AN ANALYSIS OF THE 1976 U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION IN ESTELLE V. GAMBLE, IN WHICH THE COURT HELD THAT AN INADVERTENT FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEDICAL CARE DOES NOT MEAN THAT EIGHTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED.
Abstract
SUITS TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF MEDICAL CARE IN STATE PRISONS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT IN A NUMBER OF STATES. IN MOST CASES THE FACT THAT INADEQUATE MEDICAL SERVICES EXISTED WAS FULLY ESTABLISHED AND THE COURTS WERE QUICK TO ORDER STATES TO UPGRADE THEIR STANDARDS AND IMPROVE THE QUALITY AND QUANTITY OF MEDICAL SERVICES THROUGHOUT THEIR SYSTEM. HOWEVER, WHEN IT COMES TO INDIVIDUAL ALLEGATIONS OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE OR NEGLIGENCE, THE COURTS HAVE BEEN LESS THAN EAGER TO APPLY CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS. INSTEAD, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT PREFERS THAT INMATES SEEK THEIR REMEDIES IN STATE COURTS. THIS POSTURE HAS BEEN SOLIDIFIED IN THE COURT'S DECISION IN ESTELLE V. GAMBLE. BASED ON THE COURT'S DECISION IN THIS CASE, THE AUTHOR STATES THAT IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT PRISONER COMPLAINTS ALLEGING TOTAL OR SYSTEM-WIDE DEPRIVATION OF MEDICAL CARE WILL RECEIVE A MORE SYMPATHETIC HEARING THAN THOSE COMPLAINTS ALLEGING INADEQUACY OF INDIVIDUAL TREATMENT. TO MEET CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS UNDER THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT THE PRISONER MUST DEMONSTRATE DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE BY OFFICIALS. MERE NEGLIGENCE WILL NOT SUFFICE TO SUSTAIN CONSTITUTIONAL JURISDICTION. THIS GIVES THE PRISONER ONLY A CIVIL REMEDY IN STATE COURT IN THESE CASES. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)