U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Legal Developments in the Constitutional Right to Dental Care

NCJ Number
112525
Journal
Journal of Prison and Jail Health Volume: 7 Issue: 1 Dated: (Spring/Summer 1988) Pages: 8-14
Author(s)
W J Rold
Date Published
1988
Length
7 pages
Annotation
Against the background of issues in Dean v. Coughlin (1985), which pertained to inmate dental care at New York's Bedford Hills Correctional Facility for Women, this article discusses the evolution of the inmates' legal right to dental care and assists prison and jail dentists and administrators in assessing the constitutional adequacy of their dental care systems.
Abstract
In the 1960's, judges applied the eighth amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, to prevent not only the infliction of pain and suffering on inmates, but also to remedy the failure to relieve pain and restore function. According to Estelle v. Gamble, the eighth amendment is violated when correctional officials are 'deliberately indifferent' to an inmate's 'serious medical needs.' In the 11 years since 'Estelle,' two categories of 'deliberate indifference' have emerged: denied or unreasonably delayed access to a physician for diagnosis and treatment and failure to administer treatment prescribed by a physician. In Dean v. Coughlin, the court ruled that the inmates had been denied access to dental care 'on an institutional scale,' justifying a classwide court order. With an expanded dental clinic, additional staff, and new policies and procedures, the dental program at Bedford Hills has begun to address routine dental care and followup procedures as well as emergencies.