[Conclusions from the Viagra case? Definition of disease in social legislation as exemplified by erectile dysfunction].
The article describes the controversy about the question whether statutory social health insurances are obliged to reimburse the costs for the treatment of erectile dysfunction. Next to the question whether the 'Bundesausschuss der Arzte und Krankenkassen' was entitled to decide it was highly controversial whether erectile dysfunction is a disease according to the laws of social insurance. This enforces more general considerations regarding the possibility to define disease and the relevancy of a concept of disease for the justification and limitation of socially financed services in medicine.
Werner
M H
MH
Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen, Institut für Geschichte und Ethik der Medizin. micha.h.werner@gmx.de
Wiesing
U
U
D007172:Erectile Dysfunction / Q000188:drug therapy*; D005858:Germany; D006801:Humans; D019458:Insurance Coverage / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D007349:Insurance, Health, Reimbursement / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D008297:Male; D009313:National Health Programs / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D010344:Patient Advocacy / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D010879:Piperazines / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D011687:Purines; D000068677:Sildenafil Citrate; D013450:Sulfones
D010879:Piperazines; D011687:Purines; D013450:Sulfones; D000068677:Sildenafil Citrate