Sometimes there’s a fine line between medical treatments and procedures that are essential and those that are based on choice.

Examining that line will be critical to hashing out a lawsuit the Wisconsin Department of Corrections is facing.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the suit Jan. 24 after a bill passed in the State Legislature prohibiting inmates from receiving sex changes with taxpayer money, according to a Badger Herald article. Four inmates made the complaint after their hormonal therapy was discontinued under
the law.

The ACLU filed an injunction to allow the inmates to resume their hormone treatment until the case can be heard, according to the article.The inmates, who still must have sexual reassignment therapy, were complaining of physical side effects after their therapy was stopped.

In cases where medical and psychiatric personnel decide inmates have a legitimate need, hormonal treatment is justified – especially if it has already begun, as with the four inmates in question.

And while it would be unfair to say that people with gender identity issues do not deserve to pursue gender reassignment, acquiescing to those issues is a personal choice and one that should not be made at the public’s expense.

Denying public funding for sex change is not “cruel and unusual punishment” as the four inmates and their lawyers are
contending.

Furthermore, allowing sex changes to be funded by public money could be just the beginning. If the line is not drawn somewhere, cosmetic procedures like botox injections or liposuction could be touted as ways to preserve inmates’ mental stability, leading to more wasted taxpayer money.

It should also be noted that some inmates could be requesting sex changes to gain transfer or otherwise alter their sentence.

Deciding when treatment is necessary can sometimes be difficult. But if that treatment involves a personal choice paid for by the public, the answer is quite clear.