Treating phimosis

Darby, Robert JL

doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.2003.tb05372.x

Topics

To the Editor: While I generally applaud the comments on phimosis in Dewan's recent editorial,1 there are two points on which I would take issue with him — one historical, one ethical.

Correspondence:

1. Dewan PA. Treating phimosis [editorial]. Med J Aust 2003; 178: 148-50. <eMJA full text>
2. Carne S. Incidence of tonsillectomy, circumcision and appendicectomy among RAF recruits. BMJ 1956; 2: 19-23.
3. Gairdner D. The fate of the foreskin: a study of circumcision. BMJ 1949; 2: 1433-1437.
4. Osmond TE. Is routine circumcision desirable? J Roy Army Med Corps 1953; 99: 253-254.
5. Hyam R. Empire and sexuality: the British experience. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1990: 78.
6. Smith J. Male circumcision and the rights of the child. In: Bulterman M, Hendriks A, Smith J, editors. To Baehr in our minds: essays in human rights from the heart of the Netherlands. Utrecht: Netherlands Institute of Human Rights, University of Utrecht, 1998: 465-498. (SIM Special No. 21). Available at: http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/smith/ (accessed May 2003).
7. Spilsbury K, Semmens JB, Wisniewski ZS, Holman CDJ. Circumcision for phimosis and other medical indications in Western Australian boys. Med J Aust 2003; 178: 155-158. <eMJA full text>

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.