What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Your task is to identify the issue in the case, that is, the social and/or political context of the litigation in which more purely legal issues are argued. Put somewhat differently, this field identifies the nature of the conflict between the litigants. The focus here is on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis.
Your task is to determine the specific issue in the case within the broad category of "civil rights".

Opinion:
John DiGIOVANNI, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J. D. HENDERSON, Warden, et al., Respondents-Appellees.
No. 72-1934
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 10, 1972.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 21, 1972.
Dean A. Andrews, Jr., Michael F. Barry, New Orleans, La., for petitionerappellant.
John W. Stokes, Jr., U. S. Atty., George H. Connell, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for respondents-appellees.
Before THORNBERRY, COLEMAN and INGRAHAM, Circuit Judges.
Rule 18, 5 Cir. See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York, et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant, a federal prisoner, filed suit against the warden of the Federal penitentiary in Atlanta, Georgia, alleging that he was unable to receive there the medical attention which his physical condition required. The district court granted summary judgment to the warden on the basis of affidavits of the physicians who had examined and were treating appellant. We affirm.
The complaint alleged sufficient facts to state a cause of action, thus dismissal under F.R.C.P. § 12(b)(6) would have been inappropriate. Cf. Campbell v. Beto, 460 F.2d 765 (5th Cir., 1972) [April 18, 1972, as corrected July 11, 1972], and cases cited. Compare Novak v. Beto, 453 F.2d 661 (5th Cir., 1971). Summary judgment, however, was appropriate. The record here details the treatment appellant is and has been receiving, and the difference of medical opinion concerning whether appellant’s condition warrants more radical surgical procedures. The district court, while recognizing that appellant consents to the performance of the surgical procedures which his condition may warrant, was called upon to supplant the considered medical opinions of those physicians charged with appellant's case, in whose medical opinion surgery was unwarranted. In the face of the conflicting medical reports and opinions, no clear case for judicial intervention was presented.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Question: What is the specific issue in the case within the general category of "civil rights"?

Choices:
civil rights claims by prisoners and those accused of crimes
voting rights, race discrimination, sex discrimination
other civil rights

Answer: 0