Imo, there are a number of layers to peel away (no pun intended). First, obviously, that the sex workers involved should be entirely willing to engage in this kind of activity. That may seem like a no-brainer, but very large numbers of "sex workers" have been trafficked, enslaved, brutalised, or at the very least did not freely choose to be "sex workers". It's a perfectly defensible point of view that, in fact, all sex workers were forced by circumstances aka poverty into their profession. It's also a defensible point of view that modelling for pornography or practising prostitution are irremediably demeaning, dehumanising activities for those who carry them out.

If you hold those sorts of views then I imagine you're bound to respond negatively to the proposals above. Which leaves you with the conclusion that masturbation and sex gadgetry is all the disabled will get, unless there's a mass volunteer movement of non-professionals who are willing to give more than a free hug. It's a painful dilemma -- this father seems to be right there in the difficulty of it:

I have a hard time seeing professionally provided sexual services as a replacement for skin and closeness

The word "love" is not pronounced (as a cheap euphemism for sex, fortunately, but unfortunately not seriously either). Thinking about it reminded me suddenly of something I saw quite often years ago. A group of twenty-or-so men, mostly with Downs syndrome, walking from the home where they were kept shuttered away (this really was some years back) to the village church, their only outing each week. Walking two-by-two, a half-mile along a lane. Orderly and quiet, yet many of the twos in fact couples, tenderly holding hands. Some in the village complained, but the curate OK'd it. What else could they do? he said. That seemed to show commendable open-mindedness, yet at the same time those men were shut away out of sight and a kind of condescending unction of the Church smothered the reality of their sexuality. Better to be nice about it than have it get nasty and leap at your face..?

I'm not going to get any conclusion out of that, am I? I'll leave it to you and others.

I really have a difficulty with that. A right ? Tell me it's a very basic and profund need for us as for all other living beings, and I agree.

And then the debate's nature is not quite the same, because the community has no duty to protect the right and thus provide the infrastructure - only to recognize the need and see to it there are no obstacles, which is quite different.

It is a recent phenomenon, those claims for new rights.

These people are not going to experience the side of love and emotional closeness in this scenario, but should we not at least provide them with the illusion?  Being known and accepted by someone in that way matters deeply to us.

And, after all, we cover prescriptions for Levitra, so why not this?

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

I'm not sure how much things have progressed more recently - the fact that there has been public discussion on it is big progress - but I've come across plenty of situations of disabled children (generally those who are segregated), not being given any form of sex education.  This causes huge problems as they get older because their bodies will still have developed, and they experience the same feelings and urges and desires as everybody else but they have no idea what is going on.  Think of how confusing it is for any child/adolescent/adult to get their head around emotions and sexual feelings, but when you are living in complete ignorance of where it has all come from and what it means, it gets expressed in negative and often inappropriate ways.

If there is enough awareness and mobility to somehow find the way through this to being intimate and having sex, then there's the risk of pregnancy, getting physically hurt and so on and not understanding the implications of what is happening.

This is why I very much believe that disabled children should be given sex education in a way that is as accessible and relevant as possible and that they are given choices for ways of expressing themselves sexually.

For adults/adolescents who are physically disabled but with no mental disability or learning difficulty, there's even less of a reason to not provide a proper sex education and options for being sexually active in some form, even if it doesn't involve the type of intimate relationship that one may wish to have.  

The disability movement is campaigning strongly towards having choice and control in all areas of life and that has to include the sexual nature of human beings as well, even if it is a topic that causes the public to squirm.

I did see a programme on tv a few years ago about sex services for disabled people in the UK, and the boundaries were clear, the disabled people involved were treated with dignity and respect and the prostitute was professional and treated it as a job like any other. Indeed, her disabled client was a regular.

My reaction to this is that it is, and should be, possible and should be more widely available for disabled people to engage in sexual activity if they chose.

it is the duty of care professionals to help the disabled in contacts with prostitutes.

That's a whole debate in itself.  Does this duty amount to handing over to specialist professionals or taking personal care to a new level?  At what point does a care worker become a sex worker?

Bearing in mind that, in the UK, being a care worker has to be about the most exploited and underpaid profession there is-and the care worker may well be the employee of the disabled person.  Power imbalances don't run in only one direction.