Fair enough, but likewise with my prostate check, should I be able to request a younger than 30, blonde, female doctor, with larger knockers, who will stroke me while she checks my prostate?
Even from a medical angle, it would be beneficial. Instead of yearly, I would go daily. Hell I’d even stop by on lunch. I would have the healthiest prostate in the freaking world. 
I think you should get whoever would be willing.
The ponderings here have been amusing 
But truly, I am still wondering about the medical necessity of this and its treatment. Surely patients can’t just be expected to go without sexual release for the rest of their existence. Are they really just expected to call a hooker or a “sex surrogate” (still not sure what that is)?
I’d say once or twice weekly would be sufficient for most men, maybe a little more often for younger men, and less so for older men,
I don’t believe it is currently considered medically necessary for a man to ejaculate, no. That may change in time, but it not currently mainstream thinking.
No, lust or pity are both safe motivators.
Money’s equivalent is often considered to be what you would typically, in society, expect to pay money to obtain.
Isn’t this one of the sections in Obamacare?
I kid, I kid.
Nerds, priests and assholes don’t get any, and no one feels it’s necessary to step in, y’know, to protect their ‘health!’. If they want it, they may have to pay for it.
‘Lots of fish in the sea!’, doesn’t really apply to everyone. Never has.
If the disabled person can go to the Doc with this as a ‘medical’ complaint, why can’t a priest? That ugly guy? That slimy asshole? Pretty soon the Doc is going to be getting busy, it seems.
That’s not exactly a fair comparison. In the case of the priest - he chose to become celibate. If he gets horny enough, he can choose to stop being a priest, or to stop following priestly strictures. I gather the second choice is the going option at the moment.
For the ugly dude likewise, we have this thing called plastic surgery. It aint cheap, no, but it’s available, and legal. If they can make people with no noses or jaws into reasonable-looking people again, then Mr. Ugly can choose to spend his money to upgrade his appearance and therefore have chances of procuring sex which are similar to those of normal people.
Paralyzed or profoundly disabled people don’t qualify for either of those categories - Unlike the priest, they didn’t choose to become and cannot choose to alter their state. Neither do we have fixes available for them, like we do for Mr Ugly, to mitigate their condition such that they can then take care of themselves (so to speak).
It is an interesting question, and I think it should be considered. Sadly, the whole topic falls into that puritanical streak that still insists that sex is bad or dirty or unnecessary - and therefore squashes potential research and consideration before it even happens.
Actually, there have been studies relating lack of ejaculation to prostate cancer and other prostate problems.
At some point, I’m going to start pitting you for this. You really ought to know better.
Looks up gender composition of Congress
It would have passed in minutes.
Come now, don’t spew forth such frothy nonsense!
It is the medical paradigm, though. Fixing problems largely takes priority over making them not develop in the first place. In this case, prevention is viewed as distasteful so surgery is preferable and generally yields more revenue. Consider also the hospital setting in which these activities would be performed: a great many hospitals have names that start with “Saint”, or the like. Catholic doctrine defines masturbation as a hell-worthy sin, so the administration surely could not condone it.
There have been more recent studies linking frequent masturbation *to *prostate cancer. The matter is not remotely settled, and there’s no consensus as to the mechanism of any action - protective or risk raising - and whether masturbation is causative or correlative. More research should be done - and is being done - before we reach any firm conclusions either way.
Fine, then. Restrict it to men in their 50s and beyond. Whatever.
The point is that there’s a noticeable lack of compassion in the post I originally responded to.
If thy prostate offend thee, cut it out?
Whatever.
And I still don’t remember talking to you. Why do you think I am?
You’re posting on a public message board. If you don’t want other people to reply, you can use the Private Message feature in your User CP to speak to one poster at a time.
Whatever.
Same price for a specialist? Do we have to a get a 2nd opinion?
I hope that was your agreeing to start making your (apparently) private conversations, you know, private.
Jke told to me while I was recently in the hospital (by a nurse):
Top doctor, leading members of the hospital board on a tour, walks in a room on a patient masturbating in his bed.
*Shocked hospital matron: *“Surely you don’t allow such behavior in our hospital, doctor!”
Doctor: “Oh, this patient has Johnbson’s disease – he has to do that to prevent a backup in his testicles, which would cause severe problems.”
Further on the tour, they walk into a room with a nurse giving a patient a blowjob.
Shocked hospital matron: “Well, this can’t surely can’t be allowed!”
Doctor: “Oh, this patient also has Johnson’s disease. But he has medical insurance.”