44, part of this seems to be your fundamental misunderstandings of medical ethics. It's not just about the "life-threatening" criteria. People who work on in healthcare have a special privilege, as Vaderize noted. There's no detail of life they can't pry into. They can ask a patient to strip for them on demand, and it's done without question. They may well be more familiar with the patient's body than the patient themselves. Mental, physical and social conditions are all to be laid completely bare. Within the doctor-patient relationship, there is little to no expectation that the patient will be able to keep anything to themselves at all. In terms of interpersonal interactions, that's virtually unparalleled in its level of invasiveness. But people only agree to this arrangement for a few reasons. The last, and most recent to be legally codified, is the idea of patient privacy. There are hard restrictions on spreading this information around. One of the first is the idea of disinterest. The healthcare provider is exercising this incredible access to a person and their life only to make the person more healthy. That's the only reason the patient comes, and that's the only reason the nurse, doctor, or pharmacist treats. The fact that one has this access does not transform one into some sort of god that can arbitrate over what is right and wrong for the person, or what they should and should not be doing in life. They confine themselves to speaking about what promotes or harms health. So let's take your example: someone has a prescription for Viagra. It doesn't matter if he intends to use it when he visits an illegal prostitute on the street corner, or if he's looking to physically reconnect with a dearly beloved wife after life circumstances kept them apart from one another for 18 months. Nor does it matter if the pharmacist is a free-love polyandrous libertine that thinks bonobos model the ideal form of human interaction, or if he or she is Shaker that finds all sexual activity sinful and worth abstaining from. What matters is that the person has a real, treatable medical condition. Do I, personally, think a Viagra prescription is a very worthwhile or hugely important thing? Not at all. But that's just it. I'm not the one with the Viagra prescription. Neither is the patient. It is absolutely outrageous for me to tell him that something he has chosen to value in life is actually not important. That is, it's not anyone's place to deny treatment to another person just because their view of the world is not the provider's own. Do you know why physicians just can't unilaterally pull the plug on patients in the hospital? Because it's not their place to say when a life is or is not worth living. It is the patient's, or by substitution the patient's designated decision-maker. They are the one that determines what's important in their life. Violating that understanding and substituting your own is unfathomably arrogant, narcissistic, and thankfully illegal. But the same principle about denial of care works for administration of care, too. Maybe we don't think that it makes a big difference in life whether someone gets Viagra, or birth control, or is able to keep playing golf on Friday afternoons. Regardless, for the particular patient each one of those things is important. Going to school for a few years more than average doesn't give healthcare providers the right to force that patient to reject their own values and substitute someone else's. To KK and others who spend their time spewing libertarian clap-trap, what about this most fundamental point of freedom? Shouldn't patients be able to decide for themselves what is and isn't meaningful in life? Should they really be at the mercy of healthcare providers that arbitrarily refuse to treat them just because they disagree with the patient's decisions? Are you alright with a police force that would decline to help someone in trouble just because they think the person made bad decisions to end up that way? Personally, I don't believe that's how our system should ever work.