Letter: Mad about Viagra

Sir: I must admit to being confused by the media obsession with Viagra, which has once more reared its ugly head. I understand the drug is meant to be recreational and, possibly, procreational. As it takes "two to tango", the drug must also benefit women. That of course assumes that they are feeling cheated if their flaccid partners are unable to come up to the mark, rather than relieved that their partners' inability to perform enables them to concentrate on other more important aspects of life, such as spending money.

What about the man who is prescribed Viagra, but has an uninterested partner? Should the health service be required to pay for the services of caring professional women to provide the missing ingredient?

Does this open up the possibility that all men, including those who do not suffer from erectile dysfunction, should, in the unhappy event of lack of interest displayed by their partners, be provided with freely prescribed professional partners to assist them in attaining a happy and fulfilled existence?

What about women whose partners do not suffer from erectile dysfunction but are not interested in sharing their good fortune with them, preferring to engage their talents elsewhere? Should such women be prescribed toy boys on the National Health?

Presumably the Great British Public would willingly forgo expenditure on life-saving drugs and operations if they could die with smiles of satisfaction on their faces. I hope to get a pill prescribed for my birthday in August, but I expect I'll be locked out of the house until the effects have worn off.

DON WHITE

Chattenden, Kent