No Viagra for Oldsters

First, I am completely against the Bush Prescription Drug Entitlement. But the debate over whether or not Viagra should be covered by it has revealed some interesting ideas that certain people have about older people and sex.

For example, in today's New York Times, Iowa Democratic Representative Steve King (age 55), says handing out blue pills to oldsters is "unconscionable." Virginia Democrat Jim Moran (age 60) denounces the plan as "scandalous." Bioethicist Daniel Callahan (age 75) declares: "These are essentially lifestyle drugs…In many men, impotence is simply a function of age…."

Cancer and heart disease are functions of age, too. OK, erectile dysfunction may not be life-threatening, but most people will agree that sexual intimacy is a pretty important part of their lives.

Callahan seems to be implying that old folks should just sit their rocking chairs fondly recalling their friskier younger days. He apparently believes that medicine should be restricted to managing some kind of gentle decline into senility and decrepitude.

However, modern medicine increasingly regards aging as an illness. For now physicians can treat symptoms like impotence, but research over the next couple of decades will lead to treatments aimed directly at the underlying causes of aging. In the meantime, there is nothing immoral about trying to stave off the effects of aging as long as possible so that people can maintain their mental and physical powers and enjoy longer, healthier and yes, sexier lives.

Comments

[sage]

Mr. Bailey, you are right to be against the Prescription Drug Benefit. But when Medicare will pay for my clone so I can live forever in a body created by science, I am firmly on board.

[thoreau]

I love how this issue is being debated on the "ick factor" instead of "Why the fuck are we paying for this?"

[SPD]

...there is nothing immoral about trying to stave off the effects of aging as long as possible so that people can maintain their mental and physical powers and enjoy longer, healthier and yes, sexier lives.

OK, OK, fine! Just don't make me think about it.

[Phil]

My wife works with the daughter of one of those men's former colleagues, Strom Thurmond. He fathered her when he was in his seventies. I guess it isn't all that scandalous.

[gary]

Sure, give 'em lifestyle enhancement as long as they pay for it themselves. Are we losing the distinction between critical and optional?

[Reason]

On that optimistic note regarding the future of research into a cure for aging, the work of Aubrey de Grey is quite interesting:

http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/sens/

[free form]

SPD, someday you'll be elderly and the visuals won't bother you half as much.

[Ruthless]

"OK, OK, fine! Just don't make me think about it."

SPD,
Oh grow up!

Slippery sloppery, drippery drooley.

thoreau will be happy to know Missus Ruthless has had at me more than once before the prime year (he calculated).
I could not fight her off. Ah well. We all have our burden to bear.

[kwais]

Ruthless,
OK, I missed the prime year calculation of Thoreau.

Care to run thost numbers by us once again? I would like to know how much longer I have. I think I have some favorable genes on my side on that one, my dad still gets new girlfriends, and they don't come because of his money.

[thoreau]

kwais-

All I did was use the Prime[n] function in Mathematica, which gives the nth prime number. Prime[303]=1999, Prime[304]=2003, and Prime[305]=2011.

[Ruthless]

kwais,
You're a man after my own heart, but to answer your question, I was joking with thoreau about how the Missus and I have slowed over the years to months with "R" in them, then to seasons with "S" in them, leap years, finally to calendar years that are prime numbers.
thoreau said the next would roll around about 2011 or so.