A convicted murderer serving a lengthy prison sentence has reportedly been approved to receive taxpayer-funded Ozempic injections and undergo plastic surgery, sparking significant public and political backlash. Alicia Schiller, who is serving 16 years for the 2014 murder of her housemate, Tyrelle Evertsen-Mostert, has been prescribed Ozempic by prison medical staff due to weight gain and has also had eyelid surgery to remove excess skin. This news follows a previous report that Schiller had been approved for IVF treatment while incarcerated.
Details of Medical Treatments in Prison
Schiller was convicted of killing her 31-year-old housemate, Tyrelle Evertsen-Mostert, in Geelong, Victoria, during a drug-fueled incident on November 9, 2014. While serving her sentence, she has reportedly gained weight. Prison sources have indicated that Schiller has been prescribed Ozempic, a medication commonly used for weight management and type 2 diabetes, by her doctor. Additionally, she has undergone cosmetic eyelid surgery to address excess skin.
The circumstances surrounding Schiller’s dietary habits in prison have also come under scrutiny. Sources claim she has transformed her cell into a “candy shop,” frequently consuming sweets, chips, and chocolate, and has allegedly enlisted other inmates to purchase junk food for her.
Victim’s Family and Political Opposition Condemn Decisions
The mother of the victim, Tyrelle Evertsen-Mostert, expressed strong disapproval of the decision to provide Schiller with weight loss medication. Jo Evertsen-Mostert stated that if Schiller wishes to lose weight, she should first cease consuming sweets. She questioned the rationale behind prescribing Ozempic while Schiller continues to consume unhealthy foods, calling the use of taxpayer funds for such treatments “ridiculous” and a “waste.” She added, “She was big when she went in, she can be big when she comes out.”
Brad Battin, the opposition corrections spokesman, also voiced his concerns, questioning the justification for providing Ozempic to a convicted murderer who allegedly overeats. He criticized the government’s allocation of resources, suggesting that elective treatments for prisoners should not be prioritized over the needs of the general public who face long waiting times for essential healthcare. Battin proposed that diet and exercise should be the primary recommendations, stating that the situation “doesn’t pass the pub test” and that common sense should prevail.
Government Defense of Clinical Decisions
Minister Nick Staikos defended the provision of weight loss injections for prisoners, framing them as a measure to prevent serious illness. He acknowledged that while sympathy for those who commit terrible crimes is not always forthcoming, such medical decisions are made by clinicians. Staikos argued that focusing on prevention and averting serious health conditions can ultimately save taxpayer money in the long run by reducing future healthcare costs associated with chronic diseases.
Background of the Murder
The court proceedings revealed details of the events leading up to the murder. Schiller was reportedly in possession of various knives, including box cutters and steak knives, prior to the attack. Evidence presented in court indicated that Schiller had made threats, stating she would “gut” anyone who took money from her. The victim, Ms. Evertsen-Mostert, was alleged to have borrowed $50 from Schiller. Schiller’s chilling words, “I don’t care if she took it or not, I’ll gut her,” were reportedly spoken before the fatal assault.
The horrific nature of the crime was underscored by the fact that the victim’s four-year-old son was present in the house during the murder. His enduring trauma from witnessing the brutal event was highlighted, with descriptions of the unimaginable horror and callousness involved.
Conclusion
The case highlights a contentious issue regarding the provision of medical treatments, including elective procedures and weight management drugs, to individuals within the correctional system. While the government maintains that such decisions are clinically driven and aimed at long-term health and cost savings, the allocation of public funds for these purposes, particularly for individuals convicted of serious crimes, has ignited public debate and drawn sharp criticism from victims’ families and political opponents.
