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

[HereSince1628]

--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.