Treating diseases limiting ADLs is liberal & progressive, right?

[HereSince1628]

I'm going to break this out as simply as possible, and though it looks sort of long, I know that this presentation is going to leave a lot of things unsaid...

Consider that

1) liberals are people who are broadly open minded

2) progressives are people who seek to expand rights and equal access

3) ADLs Activities of Daily Life are things that a healthy person can do.


Now, my premises are:

4) A person who is liberal and progressive might reasonably be expected to include in their definition of pathology and disease all physiological conditions that limit activities of daily life.

5) A person who is liberal and progressive might reasonably be expected to believe in expanding availablility of effective treatment of pathologies that limit activities of daily life.

So consider this

Coitus IS a normal activity of daily (well maybe nightly) life as defined by the behavioral patterns of hundreds of millions of Americans.

Erectile dysfunction interferes with the capacity of a significant number of men (and consequently their monogamous partners) to participate in coitus.

Now, to me it seems to follow from the the above that treating e.d. where it is a physiological problem could be a reasonable goal of a progressive and a liberal.

I understand with limited resources prioritization and distribution of treatment funds might make attaining that goal impossible.

Here is where I need help...please explain to...
_HOW IS IT_ liberal or progressive to argue AGAINST treating erectile dysfunction using federal funds to purchase viagra, cialis(sp?) or levitra(sp?) by claiming coitus either ISN'T an ADL, or by laughing at the image of promoting elderly people to participate in coitus?

[Eloriel]

1. Oh brother.

Not. even. worth. responding. to.

:puke:

[Baconfoot]

2. I second that oh brother.

[HereSince1628]

4. Wow, I'll second that "doesn't say anything."

But I respect your right to your opinion

[HereSince1628]

3. Well, that says nothing, thanks for that.

[HereSince1628]

5. Interesting that sex with Gannon is sensational, treatment of sexual

dysfunction isn't worthy of comment.

Just Interesting.

[sendero]

6. Here is the problem with..

... your premise.

All men lose sexual function as they age. Deciding what is "pathological" and what is "normal" is difficult. Right now, I'd be willing to bet you that 90% of the Viagra dispensed today is not prescibed to people with real ED. It is a recreational drug, quite a good one at that.

If folks in the US had easy access to off-patent cheap remedies, this would not be a problem. But real Pfizer Viagra (and its clones) are expensive. Since there are finite dollars to expend on health care, something else has to go untreated.

As an aging male, I have to say that the right to a hard-on is not guaranteed by the constitution. If I want the stuff, I'll get it myself.

[HereSince1628]

7. As I said in the intial posting I presented it stripped down...

--I think that the question of the nature of loss of sexual function and appropriateness of treatment is one best left to a clinician. I have no problem with that. I think making and filling unnecessary prescriptions is wasteful.

---my definition of pathology as a departure from normal physiological function is pretty much as it is in a textbook.

---I question the dismissal of "recreation" from activity of daily life.

Physical recreation IS a normal activity of daily life. If a retired person had carpel tunnel syndrome, tennis elbow, or arthiritis and it interfered with some recreation, those conditions would be still be seen as pathological and deserving serious consideration as disease.

Aging and accumulating chronic disease conditions don't need to be synonomous.

Where treatments are available they are, generally, prescribed. Should access to treatment be only the right of those who can afford it from private funds? Proponents of the Great Society programs argued no.

---GOOD HEALTH of ANY kind is not guaranteed by the constitution. So that point is rather moot since medicare/medicaid/prescription drug benefits alread exist under federal programs.

--Again, I do get the pragmatic issue of financing, I get the issue of funding priorities. I can understand that on a list of triaged care erectile dysfunction might not be a priority.

[sendero]

8. Nobody..

... is suggesting the dismissal of recreation, it is crucial.

I just don't wish to fund it from monies that could be used to treat more pressing problems. We have millions of Americans who are getting inadequate or nonexistent health care. Their need is more pressing, it's all about priorities.

[HereSince1628]

9. Like I said I understand the limited nature of funds and the need

for prioritization.

But pragmatism is a compromise between reality and idealism. Today people surprised me with the facility by which idealism was dismissed.

That was educational.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Guaranteed]

11. ADLs deal with more of necessary functions in life.

Cooking, sleeping, working, getting along with people, etc.

Sex wouldn't be considered nearly as necessary as those things.

At the same time, I can see where you're coming from. You realize, though, that not everyone has someone to have sex with on a regular basis- and that's not considered "abnormal," really. We can't be expected to supply sex partners to people, can we, in addition to the e.d. medication?