By your post it sounds like your concern was not so much that the man was given a prescription, but that it was paid for by our tax dollars. Is that the case?
The idea that taxpayers are being forced to fund the purchase of a product that will enable a convicted criminal to continue to prey on them was what I found particularly galling.
As to whether he should be allowed to purchase the product on his own, I don’t believe men convicted repeated times of rape should still possess the equipment that the drug targets.
Assuming he does retain a penis, I think it’s a bad idea for him to be able to purchase the product, not based on the inherent evil of the product, but based on the specific crimes he committed. However, any enforcement of such a ban would probably have to violate too many privacy rights of law-abiding citizens to appeal to me.
Castration and/or incarceration would be the most direct methods to address his particular problem without any unnecessary burden on non-rapist citizens.
I don’t believe men convicted repeated times of rape should still possess the equipment that the drug targets.