Rutgers Law Review
This Article addresses the problems with our nation's cultural and legal prohibitions against certain pain management treatments. The practice of pain management has not kept pace with the many medical advances that have made it possible for physicians to ameliorate most pain. The Author notes that some patients are denied access to certain forms of treatments due to the mistaken belief that addiction may ensue. Additionally, some individuals are under-treated for their pain to a greater degree than are others. This is especially the case for our nation's prisoners. The Author contends that prisoners are frequently denied effective pain amelioration. He notes, however, that there has been improvement in medical treatment in general for prisoners due to court challenges based on the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Yet, due to the protection of qualified immunity given to jailers and prison health care providers, prisoners cannot bring a claim for negligence or medical malpractice, they must allege a violation of their constitutional rights, a significantly higher legal standard. Prisoners must meet a subjective test showing that there was a deliberate indifference to their medical needs that violates the protection of the Eighth Amendment. The Author contends that because medical advances have made it possible to alleviate most pain suffering, withholding pain treatment or providing a less effective treatment is tantamount to inflicting pain and should be viewed as a violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Rutgers Law School
Raising the Civilized Minimum of Pain Amelioration for Prisoners to Avoid Cruel and Unusual Punishment,
Rutgers L. Rev.
Available at: https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar/436