Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
John Dean's Clinical review of the Examination of patients with
sexual problems advises doctors that "The foreskin, if present, should be
retracted, and any pain, restriction, or scarring noted".[1] But why
should the foreskin be absent?
The absence of the foreskin due to circumcision is found in 21% of
British men.[2] It is surprising that Dean does not comment further on
the significance of this since at least three published case reports show
impotence secondary to male circumcision.[3-5]
If circumcision is not recorded as a significant feature in the
history of patients with sexual dysfunction, how could it's potential role
in the cause of disease ever be recognised?
References
1. Dean J. ABC of sexual health: Examination of patients with sexual
problems. BMJ 1998;317:1641-1643.
2. Johnson AM, Wadsworth J, Wellings K, Field J, Bradshaw S. Sexual
attitudes and lifestyles. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, 1994.
3. Stinson JM. Impotence and adult circumcision. J Nat Med Assoc
1973; 65:161.
4. Palmer JM, Link D. Impotence following anesthesia for elective
circumcision. JAMA 1979; 241:2635-6.
5. Glover E. The `screening' function of traumatic memories. Int J
Psychoanal 1929; 10:90-93.
Absence of foreskin is significant too
John Dean's Clinical review of the Examination of patients with
sexual problems advises doctors that "The foreskin, if present, should be
retracted, and any pain, restriction, or scarring noted".[1] But why
should the foreskin be absent?
The absence of the foreskin due to circumcision is found in 21% of
British men.[2] It is surprising that Dean does not comment further on
the significance of this since at least three published case reports show
impotence secondary to male circumcision.[3-5]
If circumcision is not recorded as a significant feature in the
history of patients with sexual dysfunction, how could it's potential role
in the cause of disease ever be recognised?
References
1. Dean J. ABC of sexual health: Examination of patients with sexual
problems. BMJ 1998;317:1641-1643.
2. Johnson AM, Wadsworth J, Wellings K, Field J, Bradshaw S. Sexual
attitudes and lifestyles. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, 1994.
3. Stinson JM. Impotence and adult circumcision. J Nat Med Assoc
1973; 65:161.
4. Palmer JM, Link D. Impotence following anesthesia for elective
circumcision. JAMA 1979; 241:2635-6.
5. Glover E. The `screening' function of traumatic memories. Int J
Psychoanal 1929; 10:90-93.
Competing interests: No competing interests