News article:

Nevada prison wrong to deny inmate cataract surgery, court rules 
  
 A federal appeals court has ruled that Nevada prison officials may have shown “deliberate indifference” in refusing to allow cataract surgery to an inmate who was functioning with one good eye. 
  
 A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Thursday that convicted killer John Colwell was entitled to a trial challenging the prison’s “one good eye” policy. 
  
 The court, in its 2-1 decision, said the prison may be guilty of cruel and inhumane punishment in refusing the surgery. 
  
 Colwell, 67, was admitted to the prison in 1991 to begin a life without possibility of parole term for a murder in Douglas County. While in prison he developed eye problems and had cataract surgery to fix his left eye. He developed a cataract soon after on his right eye that left him blind in that eye since 2002. 
  
 That cataract has never been treated despite requests by Colwell. The court, in the majority opinion written by Judge Barry Silverman, said monocular blindness is a serious medical need. 
  
 Colwell, according to the court, suffered physical injuries due to the blindness including running his hand through a sewing machine on two occasions in the mattress factory, regularly hitting his head on the upper bunk of his cell and bumping into other inmates, which resulted in fights. 
  
 The court said the prison ignored the recommendation of two eye specialists for surgery. “The evidence shows the Nevada Department of Corrections denied cataract surgery on him as he had one good eye,” said the court. 
  
 Silverman said a reasonable jury could find prison officials denied treatment because of the policy to “endure reversible blindness in one eye if he can see out of the other.” 
  
 Judge Jay Bybee dissented, saying there was no evidence that the prison had a “one good eye” policy or that the state was deliberately indifferent to Colwell’s condition. 
  
 Bybee said Colwell takes part in religious services, plays cards, attends a computer class and reads a book a day when “he is doing well.” He walks for exercise but cannot play sports. He does not suffer physical pain. 
  
 “There are many Americans who have monocular vision and are perfectly functional,” said Bybee. “They hold jobs, drive cars, play sports, watch movies and move among the binocular population without us even being aware of their condition.” 
  
 In a footnote, Bybee said the vast majority of states grant driver’s license to individuals with monocular vision. ||||| As far as the state of Nevada is concerned, one good eye is apparently all that a prisoner needs. 
  
 The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sees it differently. 
  
 Denying cataract surgery “on the basis of an administrative policy that ‘one eye is good enough for prison inmates’ is … the very definition of deliberate indifference,” the court said Thursday in a 2-1 ruling reinstating a lawsuit by a 67-year-old inmate who has been refused surgery since 2002. 
  
 The inmate, John Colwell, has been in prison since 1991 and is serving life without the possibility of parole. He had cataract removal surgery for his left eye in 2001 but developed a cataract in his right eye later that year and has been blind in that eye since 2002. 
  
 He said the loss of perception has caused him some problems: he’s run his hand through a sewing machine twice while working in the prison mattress factory, run into a concrete block and split open his forehead, and bumped into some other inmates, twice getting into fights. 
  
 Several prison doctors have recommended cataract surgery, but the prison has refused, saying Colwell had 20/20 vision in his left eye so the treatment wasn’t essential. In response to one of his grievances, he said a doctor told him that under the policy of Nevada’s prison system, “one eye only is needed.” 
  
 Colwell’s lawsuit accused the state of violating the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment by being deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. A federal judge dismissed the suit, describing the case as a difference of opinion over medical treatment and saying Colwell couldn’t show that the state was acting in “conscious disregard of an excessive risk to his health.” 
  
 But the appeals court said partial blindness is a serious medical condition, and a jury could reasonably find that Cowell is suffering because the state has disregarded a risk to his health. 
  
 “Although blindness in one eye is not life-threatening, it is no trifling matter,” said Judge Barry Silverman in the majority opinion. “…Colwell continues to suffer blindness in his right eye, which is harm in and of itself, along with the other harms and dangers that flow from that.” 
  
 Other courts, including several judges in Nevada, have reached similar conclusions in other prison cases, said Silverman, joined by Judge William Fletcher. But in a dissenting opinion, Judge Jay Bybee said courts have been divided on the issue, with good reason: Decisions on medical treatment in prison, for conditions that are not painful or life-threatening, should ordinarily be left up to prison officials. 
  
 “Colwell is not suffering any pain from his cataract and he is fully functioning in the ordinary tasks of life,” Bybee said. “His mishaps are not unexpected given the vicissitudes of life, the aging process, and his incarceration.” 
  
 “Being blind in one eye may be considered a disability (but) it is not crippling,” Bybee said, listing such notables as Theodore Roosevelt, James Joyce, Alice Walker and Sammy Davis Jr. among those who managed with monocular vision. He said Nevada’s decision to deny surgery to Colwell was “reasonable” and also contended the Ninth Circuit’s legal test for “deliberate indifference,” established in 1992, is too lenient and is out of step with other courts. 
  
 The debate unfolds here: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/08/14/12-15844.pdf. |||||
What is a shorter version of the above article?
– Sure, having two eyes is nice, but "one eye is good enough for prison inmates." That was the policy apparently in play when the state of Nevada denied a partially blind prisoner cataract surgery—but such a policy is also "the very definition of deliberate indifference," a federal appeals court ruled yesterday. The court has allowed John Colwell's lawsuit to go forward after the convict, serving life in prison for murder, accused the state of inflicting cruel and unusual punishment, the Las Vegas Sun and San Francisco Chronicle report. Colwell says he's been blind in his right eye since 2002 but was denied cataract removal surgery despite doctors' recommendations. Though Colwell's lawsuit was initially thrown out because he couldn't prove the state was acting in "conscious disregard of an excessive risk to his health," the appeals court said yesterday that "the evidence shows the Nevada Department of Corrections denied cataract surgery on him as he had one good eye," and the state may be guilty of cruel and inhumane punishment. A judge in favor of the 2-1 decision to reinstate the lawsuit added, "although blindness in one eye is not life-threatening, it is no trifling matter." Colwell says he's suffered numerous injuries as a result of his partial blindness, including getting into fights with other prisoners after he accidentally bumped into them.
Nyhetsartikel: Nevada fängelse fel att neka intern katarakt kirurgi, domstolsregler En federal appellationsdomstol har beslutat att Nevada fängelse tjänstemän kan ha visat “avrådande likgiltighet” i att vägra att tillåta grå starr kirurgi för en fånge som fungerade med ett gott öga. En panel av den 9: e USA. Circuit Court of Appeals sade torsdag att den dömde mördaren John Colwell hade rätt till en rättegång som utmanar fängelsets ”ett gott öga” policy. Domstolen sade i sitt 2–1-beslut att fängelset kan vara skyldigt till grymt och omänskligt straff för att vägra operationen. Colwell, 67 år, togs in i fängelset 1991 för att inleda ett liv utan möjlighet till villkorlig frigivning för ett mord i Douglas County. Medan han satt i fängelse fick han ögonproblem och fick grå starrkirurgi för att laga sitt vänstra öga. Han utvecklade en grå starr strax efter på hans högra öga som gjorde honom blind i det ögat sedan 2002. Den grå starren har aldrig behandlats trots önskemål från Colwell. Domstolen, enligt majoritetens åsikt skriven av domare Barry Silverman, sade monokulär blindhet är ett allvarligt medicinskt behov. Colwell drabbades enligt domstolen av fysiska skador på grund av blindheten, bland annat att han vid två tillfällen körde handen genom en symaskin i madrassfabriken, regelbundet slog huvudet i cellens övre koj och stötte ihop med andra interner, vilket resulterade i slagsmål. Domstolen sade att fängelset ignorerade rekommendationen från två ögonspecialister för kirurgi. — Bevisen visar att Nevadadepartementet av kriminalvård nekade grå starrkirurgi på honom då han hade ett enda gott öga, sade domstolen. Silverman sade att en rimlig jury kunde hitta fängelsetjänstemän nekad behandling på grund av policyn att “uthållig reversibel blindhet i ett öga om han kan se ut ur det andra.” Domare Jay Bybee ogillade, säger att det inte fanns några bevis för att fängelset hade en “ett bra öga” politik eller att staten var medvetet likgiltig för Colwells tillstånd. Bybee sade Colwell deltar i religiösa tjänster, spelar kort, deltar i en datorklass och läser en bok en dag när “han mår bra.” Han går för motion men kan inte spela sport. Han lider inte av fysisk smärta. “Det finns många amerikaner som har monokulära visioner och är perfekt funktionella,” sade Bybee. “De håller jobb, kör bilar, spela sport, titta på filmer och flytta bland kikarpopulationen utan att vi ens är medvetna om deras tillstånd.” I en fotnot, sade Bybee de allra flesta stater bevilja körkort för individer med monokulära vision. Vad staten Nevada beträffar, är ett gott öga tydligen allt vad en fånge behöver. Det nionde U.S. Kretsöverdomstolen ser det annorlunda. Förnekande av grå starrkirurgi “på grundval av en administrativ politik som ‘ett öga är tillräckligt bra för fängelsefångar’ är ... själva definitionen av avsiktlig likgiltighet,” domstolen sade torsdag i en 2-1 dom återinföra en stämning av en 67-årig intern som har vägrats kirurgi sedan 2002. Internen, John Colwell, har suttit i fängelse sedan 1991 och avtjänar livstid utan möjlighet till villkorlig frigivning. Han genomgick grå starrborttagningsoperation för sitt vänstra öga 2001 men utvecklade en grå starr i sitt högra öga senare samma år och har varit blind i det ögat sedan 2002. Han sade att förlusten av uppfattning har orsakat honom en del problem: han har kört sin hand genom en symaskin två gånger medan du arbetar i fängelset madrassfabriken, sprang in i ett betongblock och delade upp pannan, och stötte på några andra interner, två gånger få i slagsmål. Flera fängelseläkare har rekommenderat grå starrkirurgi, men fängelset har vägrat, säger Colwell hade 20/20 syn i sitt vänstra öga så behandlingen var inte nödvändig. Som svar på ett av sina klagomål, sade han en läkare berättade för honom att enligt politiken i Nevadas fängelsesystem, "ena ögat bara behövs." Colwells stämning anklagade staten för att bryta mot det konstitutionella förbudet mot grymma och ovanliga straff genom att vara medvetet likgiltig för sina allvarliga medicinska behov. En federal domare avfärdade stämningen, beskriver fallet som en meningsskiljaktigheter om medicinsk behandling och säger Colwell kunde inte visa att staten agerade i "medveten nonchalans av en överdriven risk för hans hälsa." Men appellationsdomstolen sade partiell blindhet är ett allvarligt medicinskt tillstånd, och en jury kunde rimligtvis finna att Cowell lider eftersom staten har ignorerat en risk för hans hälsa. — Även om blindhet i ena ögat inte är livshotande, är det ingen bagatell, sade domaren Barry Silverman i majoritetsopinionen. “...Colwell fortsätter att lida blindhet i hans högra öga, vilket är skada i och för sig, tillsammans med de andra skador och faror som härrör från det.” Andra domstolar, inklusive flera domare i Nevada, har nått liknande slutsatser i andra fängelsemål, sade Silverman, tillsammans med domare William Fletcher. Men i en avvikande mening sade domare Jay Bybee att domstolarna har varit splittrade i frågan, med goda skäl: Beslut om medicinsk behandling i fängelset, för förhållanden som inte är smärtsamma eller livshotande, bör normalt överlåtas till fängelsetjänstemän. “Colwell lider inte någon smärta från sin grå starr och han är fullt fungerande i de vanliga uppgifterna i livet,” Bybee sade. “Hans missöden är inte oväntade med tanke på livets brytningar, åldrandeprocessen och hans fängslande.” “Att vara blind på ena ögat kan betraktas som ett handikapp (men) det är inte förlamande,” sade Bybee, listar sådana noter som Theodore Roosevelt, James Joyce, Alice Walker och Sammy Davis Jr bland dem som lyckats med monokulära visioner. Han sade Nevadas beslut att neka kirurgi till Colwell var "rimligt" och hävdade också den nionde kretsens juridiska test för "avrådande likgiltighet", som etablerades 1992, är alltför överseende och är ur steg med andra domstolar. Debatten utvecklas här: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/08/14/12-15844.pdf. Vad är en kortare version av ovanstående artikel?
News article: Nevada prison error to deny internal cataract surgery, court rules A federal appeals court has decided that Nevada prison officials may have shown “abstinent indifference” in refusing to allow cataract surgery for a prisoner who worked with a good eye. A panel of the 9th United States. The Circuit Court of Appeals said Thursday that convicted murderer John Colwell was entitled to a trial challenging the prison's ‘good eye' policy. The court said in its 2–1 decision that the prison may be guilty of cruel and inhuman punishment for refusing the operation. Colwell, aged 67, was admitted to prison in 1991 to begin a life without the possibility of parole for a murder in Douglas County. While in prison, he had eye problems and had cataract surgery to repair his left eye. He developed a cataract shortly after on his right eye that blinded him in that eye since 2002. The cataract has never been treated despite the wishes of Colwell. The court, in the opinion of the majority written by Judge Barry Silverman, said monocular blindness is a serious medical need. According to the court, Colwell suffered physical injuries due to blindness, including twice driving his hand through a sewing machine in the mattress factory, regularly hitting his head in the upper bunk of the cell and bumping into other inmates, resulting in fights. The court said the prison ignored the recommendation of two eye specialists for surgery. — The evidence shows that the Nevada Department of Corrections denied cataract surgery on him as he had one good eye, the court said. Silverman said that a reasonable jury could find prison officials denied treatment due to the policy of “sustainable reversible blindness in one eye if he can look out of the other.” Judge Jay Bybee disapproved, saying that there was no evidence that the prison had a “good eye” policy or that the state was deliberately indifferent to Colwell’s condition. Bybee said Colwell participates in religious services, plays cards, participates in a computer class and reads a book one day when “he’s fine.” He goes for exercise but can’t play sports. He doesn't suffer from physical pain. “There are many Americans who have monocular visions and are perfectly functional,” Bybee said. “They keep jobs, drive cars, play sports, watch movies and move among the binocular population without even being aware of their condition.” In a footnote, Bybee said the vast majority of states grant driving licences for individuals with monocular vision. As far as the state of Nevada is concerned, a good eye is apparently all a prisoner needs. The Ninth U.S. The Court of Appeals sees things differently. Denial of cataract surgery “on the basis of an administrative policy that ‘an eye is good enough for prison prisoners’ is ... the very definition of deliberate indifference,” the court said Thursday in a 2-1 sentence reintroduce a lawsuit by a 67-year-old inmate who has been refused surgery since 2002. The inmate, John Colwell, has been in prison since 1991 and serves life without the possibility of parole. He underwent cataract removal surgery for his left eye in 2001 but developed a cataract in his right eye later that year and has been blind in that eye since 2002. He said that the loss of perception has caused him some problems: he has driven his hand through a sewing machine twice while working in the prison mattress factory, ran into a concrete block and split up the boiler, and encountered some other inmates, twice few in fights. Several prison doctors have recommended cataract surgery, but the prison has refused, says Colwell had 20/20 sight in his left eye so the treatment was not necessary. In response to one of his complaints, he said a doctor told him that according to the politics of Nevada's prison system, "one eye is only needed." Colwell's lawsuit accused the state of violating the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishments by being deliberately indifferent to its serious medical needs. A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit, describing the case as a disagreement over medical treatment and saying Colwell could not show that the state acted in "conscious disregard of an excessive risk to his health." But the Court of Appeal said partial blindness is a serious medical condition, and a jury could reasonably find that Cowell is suffering because the state has ignored a risk to his health. “Although blindness in one eye is not life-threatening, it is no trifle,” said judge Barry Silverman in the majority opinion. “...Colwell continues to suffer blindness in his right eye, which is injury in and of itself, along with the other injuries and dangers arising from it.” Other courts, including several judges in Nevada, have reached similar conclusions in other prison cases,” said Silverman, along with Judge William Fletcher. However, in a dissenting opinion, Judge Jay Bybee said that the courts have been divided on the issue, with good reason: Decisions on medical treatment in prison, for conditions that are not painful or life-threatening, should normally be left to prison officials. “Colwell does not suffer any pain from his cataract and he is fully functional in the usual tasks of life,” Bybee said. “His mishaps are not unexpected given the breakages of life, the aging process and his imprisonment.” “Being blind in one eye can be considered a handicap (but) it’s not paralyzing,” Bybee said, listing such notes as Theodore Roosevelt, James Joyce, Alice Walker and Sammy Davis Jr among those who have succeeded in monocular visions. He said Nevada's decision to deny surgery to Colwell was "reasonable" and also claimed the ninth circuit's legal test for "abstinent indifference", established in 1992, is too lenient and is out of step with other courts. The debate is being developed here: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/08/14/12-15844.pdf. What is a shorter version of the above article?
– Visst, att ha två ögon är trevligt, men "ett öga duger för fängelsefångar." Det var den politik som uppenbarligen var i spel när staten Nevada förnekade en delvis blind fången grå starr kirurgi-men en sådan politik är också "själva definitionen av avsiktlig likgiltighet," en federal appellation domstol dömde igår. Domstolen har låtit John Colwells stämning gå vidare efter straffången, avtjänat livstids fängelse för mord, anklagat staten för att ha utdömt grymma och ovanliga straff, Las Vegas Sun och San Francisco Chronicle-rapporten. Colwell säger att han varit blind i sitt högra öga sedan 2002 men nekades grå starrborttagningsoperation trots läkarnas rekommendationer. Även om Colwells stämning först kastades ut eftersom han inte kunde bevisa att staten agerade i "medvetet nonchalans av en överdriven risk för hans hälsa", sade appellationsdomstolen igår att "bevisen visar Nevada Department of Corrections nekade kataraktkirurgi på honom som han hade ett gott öga," och staten kan vara skyldig till grymma och omänskliga straff. En domare till förmån för 2-1 beslutet att återinföra stämningen tillade, "även om blindhet i ena ögat inte är livshotande, är det ingen bagatell". Colwell säger att han har fått många skador till följd av sin partiella blindhet, inklusive att hamna i slagsmål med andra fångar efter att han råkat stöta på dem.
- Sure, having two eyes is nice, but "an eye is good enough for prison prisoners." It was the policy that was obviously in play when the state of Nevada denied a partially blind prisoner cataract surgery—but such a policy is also "the very definition of deliberate indifference," a federal appeals court ruled yesterday. The court has allowed John Colwell's lawsuit to proceed after the convict, serving life imprisonment for murder, accusing the state of passing cruel and unusual sentences, the Las Vegas Sun and the San Francisco Chronicle report. Colwell says he has been blind in his right eye since 2002 but was denied cataract removal surgery despite doctors' recommendations. Although Colwell's lawsuit was first thrown out because he could not prove that the state was acting in "consciously disregard of an excessive risk to his health," the Court of Appeal said yesterday that "the evidence shows the Nevada Department of Corrections denied cataract surgery on him as he had a good eye," and the state may be guilty of cruel and inhuman punishment. A judge in favor of the 2-1 decision to reinstate the lawsuit added, "although blindness in one eye is not life-threatening, it is no trifle". Colwell says he has sustained many injuries as a result of his partial blindness, including getting into fights with other prisoners after he accidentally encounters them.