Mr2001:
Now you consider a person who has been battered. How would they feel if you told them, “Hey, sorry about what happened to you, but that guy who beat you up - he fell down the stairs at a subway terminal and broke several bones, and we’re going to be taking some of your tax money to help him regain the use of his arms.” Or even, “He had a heart attack and we’re going to be taking some of your tax money to help him stay alive.” Would they feel disrespected? Probably. Is that a good reason to deny the guy treatment? No. No one gets an emotional veto over someone else’s health care.
…
As for your first point… yes, frankly, I think it’s more important to treat people with medical problems than to deny treatment to an entire group just because some fraction of them might use their new health to do something undesirable. We don’t deny people treatment for their arms just because they’ve used their arms to commit crimes in the past (AFAIK); why should this appendage be any different?
Because it is in fact different , in many various and obvious respects. That is the key point. Refusing to provide free Viagra is not justified solely because a rapist used his penis to commit a crime (although that’s part of it) - it is also justified because the ability to get an erection is not even remotely comparable in importance to the use of one’s arms.
Ms2001
May 28, 2005, 10:53am
42
It’s the only justification for singling out sex offenders, and it’s a pretty weak one.