Chains, trains and automobiles: Medical transport for prisoners in Switzerland

Abstract

Imprisoned persons are transported for several purposes including transfers to a different prison, legal-procedural reasons such as court hearings, and to receive medical treatments. The availability and acceptability of transportation may limit access to healthcare if health services cannot be provided within the prison grounds. The aim of this article is to examine the conditions of medical transport for older prisoners in Switzerland and to assess whether or not these practices are in line with international recommendations. Interviews with experts working in the prison context and with older prisoners were conducted. Results show that handcuffing practices and space restrictions during medical transport are not adapted to prisoners’ health condition. Older prisoners risk being exposed and humiliated by transport conditions. The reasons for delayed medical transport can be administrative constraints or erroneous medical judgement. Switzerland’s cantonal system results in a variety of regulations for transports, so that cantonal differences, administrative constraints and inappropriate conditions can delay access to necessary healthcare and increase suffering.

Equivalence of care? Accessibility and availability of dialysis services for older prisoners in Switzerland

“…It also would remove prisoners from a prison to which they have become accustomed. Fourth, administrative barriers to shorter medical transport need to be tackled, including the planning of transportation (Haesen et al, 2021). For example, prisoners in need of transport to external health facilities should be scheduled as the last stops in the transportation chain (i.e.…”

“…Switzerland is a relatively small country and it may come as a surprise to presume spatial injustice. However, factors such as long transportation times from remote prisons, the application of a "one rule for all" principle, lack of data and unclear administrative responsibilities indicate that the principle of equivalence of care is not upheld (Haesen et al, 2021).…”