The recent debate in the media over whether or not Viagra has the same status for health insurance purposes as the birth control pill is an interesting one. The real question to ask is whether the pill is actually needed for medicating a treatable condition. The very fact that the question has arisen gives pause to examine another type of debate, which is actually fundamental to our vision of the human person.
When Viagra came on the scene ten years ago, the alleged physical condition for which the pill would be used as treatment was something known as erectile dysfunction, also known as impotence, which is a condition that does affect a large number of men. The medication became controversial not so much because it existed but because the television ads were offensive to certain groups of people. Be that as it may, the medicine has a role to play in the treatment of men according to many medical professionals.
So how does this pill, which is a valid medical treatment, compare to the birth control pill, which does not treat a disease or medical condition?
Why should they have equal status when it comes to what health insurance coverage should provide?
Well, I cannot think of a comparison, and I am now compelled to tell you why.
When the birth control pill was first conceived in the mind of Dr. Gregory Pincus, an endocrinologist, the primary goal was to find some type of chemical that would inhibit the onset of pregnancy. That way, men and women would be free of the worry associated with the possibility of procreating a child and then having to accept responsibility for raising that child. Or, as one biographical sketch of Pincus states, “By creating the first practical oral contraceptive, the birth control pill, in the 1950s, Gregory Pincus brought privacy and convenience to women worldwide.”
While the current debate would deny it, the fundamental fact is that indeed the pill was never devised to assist anyone in treating a disease or malfunction of the human body, but rather was created specifically to solve the perceived social problem of pregnancy by preventing it. Or, to put it another way, the pill was and is a recreational drug.
Sadly, in the intervening 50+ years, the pill has been through a number of public relations campaigns and the vast majority of the American public views it as a necessity today. Any citizen would be hard-pressed to tell you precisely why pregnancy has become classified as a medical condition similar to cancer or typhoid.
Obviously that is not what the pill is all about; it has never been a treatment but rather a marketable entity designed to guarantee freedom of sexual license without accountability. Or, as the Pincus biographical sketch opines, “The cultural impact of the pill is wide-reaching, allowing women the liberty of choosing a method of birth control that can be administered in the privacy of their own homes.”
So when a debate ensues that centers on the reasons why health insurance should cover both Viagra and the birth control pill, the obvious response is that the pill does not qualify as a legitimate treatment for an ailment and therefore should not be covered by health insurance.
-
Viagra may treat impotence and thus help the sufferer recover bodily health.
-
The pill will possibly prevent a female from getting pregnant, will not protect her from acquiring sexually transmitted disease, could contribute to her suffering from myriad health problems including cancer and heart disease and is generally an artificial pollutant of the human body.
In conclusion, it should be obvious that a company interested in insuring the continued health of an individual would never provide the means for that person to ingest a chemical that could make her sick and might kill a baby.
It is a no brainer - health insurance is all about preserving health and restoring health, not destroying it.
July 16th, 2008 at 7:46 am
“is generally an artificial pollutant of the human body.”
From the news reports, it is also an environmental pollutant. If it is in our water that means we all have the opportunity to ingest the drug. Talk about the new feminization, including our male population.
Health Insurance is all about making money. Just making my health insurance payment each month (for a couple who has not seen a doctor in 20 years for anything more serious than a hangnail) is enough to give me an ulcer.
July 16th, 2008 at 10:51 am
I believe that the faulty reasoning goes like this:
1. Viagra, et al. lets men have sex whenever they want.
2. Without contraception, women can’t have sex whenever they want, unless they want to risk having a @#$%$ kid.
3. Therefore, both need to be covered, since it is hardly fair that women would have to pay more to have sex than men.
It all comes of seeing fertility, particularly female fertility, as a disease. (I remember reading that one of the ZPG folks actually called for pregnancy to be classified as a ’sexually transmitted disease ‘ .)
July 17th, 2008 at 10:59 am
While the birth control pill may originally have been devised only to prevent pregnancy it certainly is not the case that it “does not treat a disease or medical condition”. Do a google search on “PCOS” and you will find that one of the treatments is the birth control pill, simply to give those girls affected a regular period again. I personally know at least three girls, committed, unmarried Christians, who use the pill for just that purpose but would never consider using it for contraceptive purposes. They are using the pill in the hope that by the time they get married the problem will clear up and they won’t need it anymore.
Although birth control and disregard for the sanctity of life is on the increase and more needs to be done to fight it, keep in mind that not everyone you see at the pharmacy getting the pill is looking for sexual liberation. All these girls I know have stories about being judged and shamed at the pharmacy and by acquaintances who assumed they were one of “those”.
July 18th, 2008 at 12:25 am
What I never understood where those cialis commercials with the amorous old couples ending up in the 2 bathtubs by the lake! I don’t get it…where did the bathtubs come from, who put them there? And why bathtubs?
madeline
July 18th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
In response to “cyclist 443″, the claim that the pill regulates a woman’s difficult cycle is also a lie. In reality, it completely shuts down her natural system, and imposes an artificial “cycle” which isn’t a cycle at all. It suppresses her natural hormonal balance for most of the month, using artificial hormones to imitate a pregnancy so the body cannot become pregnant for real. This is why the pill causes weight gain, moodiness, etc (all typical symptoms of a pregnancy). A few days of bleeding are allowed to occur each month only to deceive women into thinking there is still a cycle of some sort, to make it still seem natural. Unfortunately, most of these well-meaning women will find that when they go off the pill, their original problems will still exist. For the few who’s problems have disappeared, they most likely outgrew it on their own, against all odds, because their bodies will have been heavily toxified after years of pill usage. And unfortunately, they will now be at a much higher risk for infertility and miscarriage. After chemically suppressing their natural fertility for so long, they cannot expect their intricate reproductive systems to detoxify and kick start instantly. Please spread the word to any searching and suffering Christian women you know. And the good news is, that there is natural, ethical help now for women with these health problems. It’s called Naprotechnology, researched and taught by practitioners and physicians all over North America. It’s the more medical arm of the Creighton Method of Natural Fertility Planning, based at Creighton University in Omaha, with Dr. Hilgers. These wonderful people help women find the cause of their problems and then help them truly regulate their cycles rather than suppressing them with chemicals. Please look it up and pass it on!
July 18th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
I don’t want to leave the impression that this information is only suitable for Christian women. Most women, no matter what their beliefs, prefer natural, non-chemical options, especially when these options eliminate the possibility of aborting a child without even knowing it.