Happy LOLcat from I Can Has Cheezburger?
Never mind the Vi*agra spam in your junkmail box. Mexico City is about to make that obsolete, at least if you’re an elderly man. Starting on December 1, the city will dispense free ED drugs to men over 70.
With this program, Mexico is putting its rich neighbor to shame. In many cases, even those Americans with decent health insurance don’t have coverage for ED drugs or contraceptives. (Let’s not pit them against each other; each can be crucial to sexual health.) Men recovering from prostate surgery, where ED drugs are a standard part of the rehab regimen, often end up mail ordering them from India because insurance won’t pay. For the uninsured, ED drugs are often simply unaffordable. In a similar vein, birth control has actually gotten pricier in recent months as federal subsidies have been allowed to expire.
Mexico City’s stated rationale is an interesting one, as CNN reports:
“Everyone has the right to be happy,” said Marcelo Ebrard Casaubon, governor of the federal district that encompasses the Mexican capital.
I realize that a strict libertarian or conservative would surely see the Mexico City plan as out of bounds. These are the same people – like John McCain – who oppose funding for contraception. They’d be just as outraged at the idea of funding a bunch of old fellows’ jollies.
And yet, as blogger Leah Cohen points out, our Declaration of Independence guarantees the pursuit of happiness. Of course, the pursuit of happiness is not the same as actual happiness. By the same token, the right to be a sexual creature doesn’t guarantee we get to have sex with anyone at any time we desire.
Even so. Call me a socialist, but I think the Mexico City scheme is a wonderful idea. Sexuality is a major part of potential happiness, and major sexual dysfunction can so quickly torpedo it. This is not just about orgasms; it’s about pleasure and connection and intimacy, which ED can seriously disrupt. As such, it can benefit these men’s partners, too.
I’m aware not everyone will agree that the government has any role to play here. But even if you think that sexuality is trivial, what about health? Because the second, stealth aspect of the Mexico City initiative is to entice these guys to get a thorough medical checkup.
“We have to protect people — senior citizens above all,” [Governor Casaubon] said in a statement Thursday. “Many of them are abandoned and lack money. They don’t have medical services, and a society that doesn’t care for its senior citizens has no dignity.” …
To obtain the medicine, men must first undergo a “very, very detailed” medical check to screen for and possibly treat ailments such as hypertension and diabetes, the government said.
Centers in Mexico City also will offer a variety of treatment to elderly men and women.
(Source: CNN again.)
That last sentence gives away the agenda, which is apparently much broader than sexual health. (The article unfortunately doesn’t spell out the scope of the other services, so I don’t know anything about what women will be offered.) Some of these men who seek ED meds may not require them if their hypertension or diabetes is brought under control. In others, ED may be the visible signal of hidden underlying disease. Their clinic visit may result in a diagnosis that would’ve otherwise been missed. These are guys who currently receive little or no health care, so their checkups will likely reveal a host of other issues, too.
Unlike the United States, Mexico committed years ago to viewing health care as a right, not a privilege. Now it seems to be making a serious attempt to follow through on this promise. The provision of ED drugs thus needs to be viewed as one tactic to deliver basic care to a long underserved population.
Reframing health care as a right rather than a privilege is, of course, a truly radical proposition, especially for those of us north of the border. But is it so radical, after all, to view health care and adequate food and clean water and – yes – even sexual health as basic rights? Aren’t they all essential to the pursuit of happiness?
We live in a culture where there’s a lot of palaver about “staying positive” during even the most dire illnesses. If you’ve ever been seriously or chronically ill, you know that – while we may grow or learn from the experience – it rarely enhances our happiness. It’s very hard indeed to be happy while suffering severe pain or nausea. It’s harder yet to be chipper if you’re no longer alive.
During the presidential debates, Barack Obama said he agrees that access to health care is a right. What do you think? Is it properly within the role of government to promote people’s happiness? And would you draw the line at sexual happiness?
Patron cat of Kittywampus (1985-2001)
Wouldn’t it be interesting if one could put one’s happiness in a burette and measure exactly how much one had? The governor must be thinking along those lines: happiness to him seems fluid in nature – rather a seminal thought?
He’s trying to make up, perhaps, for his namesake in ‘Middlemarch’: Dorothea would probably have been a lot happier if her old Casaubon had taken a bit of Viagra.
Well, the governor is certainly given to making grand ejaculations about happiness, at any rate.