A Surgical Temptation: The Demonisation of the Foreskin and the Rise of Circumcision in Britain
BMJ 2006; 332 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.332.7534.183 (Published 19 January 2006) Cite this as: BMJ 2006;332:183
All rapid responses
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.
The last paragraph of Dr Stefan Bailis’s review of ‘A Surgical
Temptation: The Demonisation of the foreskin and the Rise of Circumcision
in Britain’ by Dr Robert Darby, is revealing: ‘Whether such proven medical
reasons are sufficient to justify the routine practice of circumcision is
of course a matter of ongoing debate.’
Note the ‘of course’. Dr Bailis seems to regard circumcision as a
normal or standard procedure and anyone who challenges it is an ‘anti-
circumcision activist’. It should be the other way around. And who says
the medical reasons for circumcision are ‘proven’? Such alleged reasons
are highly controversial, at best. Is there an epidemic of penile cancer
or urinary tract infections in developed countries that do not routinely
circumcise? By this reasoning one could recommend the removal of the
breast buds of new-born girls to prevent breast cancer in later life.
It does not seem to be generally realised that circumcision removes
most of the erogenous tissue of the penis1. Therefore, one of Dr Darby’s
quoted objections to circumcision, ‘US boys (predominantly circumcised)
are “physically disabled” in comparison with (mainly uncircumcised) Dutch
boys”, is not ‘hyperbole’ but merely a statement of the truth.
1. Taylor JR, Lockwood AP, Taylor AJ. The prepuce: specialized mucosa
of the penis and its loss to circumcision. Br J Urol 1996;77:291-295
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Excuse for pro-circumcision rant
Having read the book that was reviewed and after reading this review,
there is
ample evidence to support my opinion that the reviewers either did not
read the
book in its entirety or did not read it carefully. Instead the reviewers
use most of
the review to pursue an extended rant that includes many of the
circumcision
lobby's talking point. The content of their rant had next to nothing to do
with the
content of the book. I would have expected the editors to choose book
reviewers
who are able to read a book carefully, in its entirely, and provide
commentary
that are related to the book instead of promoting their pet issue.
Competing interests:
None
Competing interests: No competing interests