Home      Login

Abstract: 

Every correctional health care professional encounters Estelle v. Gamble at some point in his or her career, usually very early, and often as part of training on “legal issues” or “preventing liability.” While Estelle is often misunderstood as granting inmates a right to health care not enjoyed by the general public, it does not do so. What it does do is to require correctional facilities to provide “health care adequate to avoid needless pain and suffering” (Cohen, 2017). Specifically, the Supreme Court recognized two key concepts in its Estelle decision: serious condition and deliberate indifference. In this article, adapted from his forthcoming book, “The Supreme Court and Corrections: 20 Landmark Cases That Have Shaped America’s Prisons and Jails,” William C. Collins examines the conditions and issues raised in the case, legal arguments made before the high court, and the impact of the court’s ruling, which, perhaps more than any other, guides the policies and practices of health care in corrections today.

Keywords: Serious Medical Condition; Deliberate Indifference

Affiliations:  1: Founding Editor, Correctional Law Reporter.