Medical issue here. After this story broke, my hubby of course went into potential damage control in his prison, knowing that the hysterical public is prone to idiocy. In his search he learned that one of his inmates, currently incarcerated, is receiving viagara. According to the medical director, it is for a cardio pulmonary condition and they feel strongly the medication will assist him. He sat in meetings today, listened to the professionals insist this is the best option and left the room supporting them. He understands that many drugs have dual uses and he trusts that he, without the alphabet soup for medical science after his name, should not override the reasonable and professional judgment of someone more qualified to speak on the subject. This of course, is not true with 90% of Americans.
I wonder how many of these conditions are like that as well. Likely, my husband will be in the paper soon as self-righteous idiots deal with these “serious issues” so they can smoke-screen the public into actually believing that the greatest risk to their safety is from these viagara popping ex-offenders. However, they will of course overlook the thousands of white collar crimes that have 100x (approx) more likelihood of making victims out of them, and yes, in many cases, killing them.
I say, like many others have said already, meh. You can throw the straw man of “you are helping sex offenders, sex offend”, but that only comes from people that are really convinced in their own little world that a sex offenders actually has to have an erect penis to offend. The facts show otherwise.
But, as my husband says many times, in a joking manner, when he describes the reaction of the press, the public and many of the politicians that oversee his department, “Facts? Facts? Let’s not get this situation all confused with the facts”.
I have five or six patients who are on Medicaid who get Viagra. The state pays for two pills a month, and I don’t give it to them until they’ve tried non-pharmacologic methods (relaxation, etc.). It isn’t the best use of Medicaid funds, but given that the state almost certainly doesn’t pay anything like retail for the pills, it’s so far down on my outrage meter that it doesn’t even register.
I’d like to say that none of those five or six are convicted sex offenders, but for all I know they all are. It isn’t like I ask.
Do me a favor Doc. Check into that a bit more. My husband was very cautious about the assertion it can be used to treat hypertension but then he researched it and learned that the original drug was designed and originally tested to treat hypertension. The erection was actually a side effect that Pfizer found a way to market. Very successfully too.
But, I am curious, and so is my husband, is this treatment really justified? Not asking for a medical opinion, BTW, I am asking for any research that you know of to support the conclusion.
Most likely, they aren’t- yet. That’s why you haven’t seen any of them sent back to prison. But a fairly standard condition of release is that the releasee will obey any additional conditions imposed by the parole or probation officer. And (since I do work in the system) I’d bet a week’s pay that every parole and probation agency in the country will within the next couple of weeks make it policy that all registered sex offenders have a condition imposed which prohibits them from possessing Viagra, taking Viagra or possessing a prescription for Viagra.
Maybe I’m totally wrong about this, but isn’t part of the reason that some sex offenders, um, offend is that they have trouble with normal, healthy sexual relationships? If a therapist and/or physician determine that Viagra would facilitate a normal healthy sexual relationship, why would it be such a bad thing for it to be prescribed?
We’re supposed to be all outraged about this, and think that convicts are popping Viagra so they can go out and rape young children, right? But what if at least in some cases, it’s so they can have a normal, fulfulling relationship with their Significant Other, reducing the likelyhood of them acting out sexually in inappropriate ways?
I’ll admit that’s the most sanguine possible take on the situation, and I don’t have any cites to back it up, so, y’know, call bullshit if need be.
The only official indication for Viagra is erectile dysfunction. It’s true that other uses are being considered, and tried, and experimental trials are being done for a variety of things. The medication was originally designed as an anti-anginal pill, not unlike nitroglycerine, for dilation of coronary arteries.
IF the medication is found to be useful for other conditions, fine. But there’s nothing that would prevent a parole board from stipulating that the medication could not be prescribed for erectile dysfunction in a parolee. At least not as I understand the legalisms involved.
So, since the parolee is by all accounts not violating parole, and is legally receiving Medicaid, and Viagra is an approved drug for Medicaid, who are we condemning here?
Viagra is only a med–it faciilitates erection thru vasodilation.
It does nothing to address the psycho-social aspects and possible causes of pedophilia and rape.
I do not know if Viagra works as an aphrodisiac? As far as I know, in crude terms, it makes you hard, but not horny. Not being male, Idon’t know if one can be hard and not horny.
The concept of convicted sex offenders who are still under supervision getting sexual performance enhancing drugs from public funds, I believe.
I’m not particularly worked up about the idea. I just feel that restricting them from getting viagra for that purpose is not some extraordinary violation of their rights.
Viagra is not an aphrodisiac, it’s side-effects may actually blunt desire for some. But it does improve the physical ability to achieve and sustain an erection.
And a male can achieve erection without being “horny”.
But many people are, and it is a distraction from real problems. If we had complete knowledge, I would be willing to bet there are no more than a handful of sex offenders getting Viagra, yet it will be splashed all over the TV news, talk radio, ad nauseum as though it was more important than deficit spending, the state of health care, or the war in Iraq. It is a deliberate distraction, like Terry Schiavo, a hot button issue design to mislead people from focusing on the real threats to society. It is not worth the attention it will receive over the next few days and weeks (god, I hope it fades that soon), and in the meantime, the real problems will have grown.
Maybe it’s a inaccurate, but I’ve got this notion floating around in my head that some men are sexually aggressive and abusive because of frustration with impotence. (Maybe that’s as wrongheaded as the notion that men commit rape because they are horny. I dunno.) Seems like if there’s a medical means to help them with their impotence, that could be helpful in some cases.
Hell, yeah! Qadgop, for instance, can attest that I’ve never let my lack of credentials stop me from spouting off on ANY topic. It’s my right–nay, my DUTY–as a member of this glorious republic to have and give my opinion, no matter how ill-informed and colored by my prejudices, on whatever the topic. If we limit the discussion to only those who know what they are talking about this will no longer be a democracy but a meritocracy and those men did not die on Bunker Hill, the fields of Gettysburg, or the sands of Iwo Jima just so that your husband could hand over his right to blather on and on about things outside his area of expertise to some so-called “experts” who wrap themselves in their sheepskins and expect the rest of us to bow down to their “superiority.” Do not let him take that path, woman, though it may seem easier, for that is the path to the tyranny of the eggheads! Do not let his voice be silenced! Make him stand tall and say, “Isn’t there something else you can prescribe for that man that is less likely to get my name in an uncomplimentary newspaper article? How about a nice, cheap generic?” For unless he makes his views known the Medical Establishment will run roughshod over him, making him a laughingstock and blowing the hell out of the clinic’s budget.
Where did this story FIRST break? Was it some “investigative report” for TV news? Sounds to me like a May sweeps story. Of course, everyday is sweeps for newspapers, and for demogogue politcos.
Viagra is paid for by the gov’t for Medicaid recipients, like any other medication to treat a medical problem (erectile dysfunction, in this case). If there is a sex offender that is also a Medicaid recipient (I’m sure there’s a bit of overlap in those two sets), they would qualify for gov’t paid medication just like the non-sex-offender Medicaid recipient.
I’ve found nothing in the medical literature indicating that the cure for sexual aggression and/or pedophilia involves correcting physiological erectile dysfunction. Nor have I found evidence that the etiology for such behaviors is driven by that sort of physiologic derangement.
I agree with those posters who say that this is a tempest in a teapot, and not worthy wasting time or energy on when other problems loom so large.
But I stand by my assertion that there’s really nothing inherently wrong with considering restricting the use of such meds in that sort of population while they are on parole/probation. I think it should be decided case by case, rather than a blanket directive. But I don’t have a problem with denying them meds for erectile dysfunction as the default setting, and requiring presentation of evidence to the contrary to waive said restriction.
These folk (the sex offenders) have major issues. And the resolution/non-resolution of said issues is not going to depend on whether or not they get Viagra, believe me.
