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.
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". But why
should the foreskin be absent?
The absence of the foreskin due to circumcision is found in 21% of
British men. 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?
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
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.