Volume 178 - Issue 11
Treating phimosis
Author: Robert JL Darby
Med J Aust 2003; 178 (11): 590. || doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2003.tb05372.x
Published online: 2 June 2003
Published online: 2 June 2003
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.
Firstly, the incidence of circumcision in Britain never reached anything like 95%, and most of the decline in the practice occurred in the 1940s. According to surveys in the 1940s and 1950s,2 even at ...
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.
Firstly, the incidence of circumcision in Britain never reached anything like 95%, and most of the decline in the practice occurred in the 1940s. According to surveys in the 1940s and 1950s,2 even at the height of its popularity, circumcision was performed in only 30%–40% of British boys. Circumcision was more likely as parental income and educational level rose — its incidence could be up to 50% among public school boys, but only 20% among working class and rural boys.5 A survey of boys born in 1946 found that only 24% were circumcised, but the class differential was striking — 39% among professionals but only 22% among unskilled workers.5
One must conclude that circumcision never affected more than a minority of British males.
Secondly, I would question Dewan's remark that "we should respect the view of parents who regard circumcision as good treatment for their child, given certain provisos." This appears to suggest that a physician should agree to circumcise a boy, even in the absence of medical need, so long as he or she has made persistent parents aware of other options and provided them with correct information about the prepuce.
There are obvious ethical difficulties with this position, as it gives greater weight to the wishes of the parents than to the best interests of the boy. If there is no medical reason for the boy to be circumcised, circumcision is not in his best interests. As the physician's prime responsibility is to the health of the patient, it would appear to be his or her duty to decline to carry out the surgery and instead give the parents sufficient information to enable them to look after the child and his penis.6
I agree with Dewan that physicians should respect parents' opinions, but not that they should acquiesce to their wishes, if these are not in the best health interests of the child. Instead, I would agree with the suggestion of Spilsbury et al in the same issue of the Journal,7 that "improved education for physicians, and perhaps parents, with regard to foreskin development and management, is required."
References
- Dewan PA. Treating phimosis [editorial]. Med J Aust 2003; 178: 148-50. <eMJA full text>
- Carne S. Incidence of tonsillectomy, circumcision and appendicectomy among RAF recruits. BMJ 1956; 2: 19-23. i1082474
- Gairdner D. The fate of the foreskin: a study of circumcision. BMJ 1949; 2: 1433-1437.
- Osmond TE. Is routine circumcision desirable? J Roy Army Med Corps 1953; 99: 253-254. i1082477
- Hyam R. Empire and sexuality: the British experience. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1990: 78. i1082479
- 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).
- 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>
Barriers and Facilitators to Timely Detection and Optimal Management of Chronic Wet Cough in Aboriginal Children Across Australia From the Perspectives of Carers of Aboriginal Children: A Qualitative Study
Gloria T. Y. Lau, Pam Laird, Robyn Aitken, Melanie Barwick, Liam Bedford, Emily R. Bowden, Jamie Everingham, Angela Fuery, Reece Griffin, Neha Jain, Mina Kinghorn, Renae Knapp, Gabrielle B. McCallum, Peter Morris, Richard Norman, Peter C. Richmond, Aarti Saiganesh, Slade Sibosado, Cameron Taylor, Maree Toombs, Roz Walker, Joan Wilson, Anne B. Chang, André Schultz
Barriers and Facilitators to Timely Detection and Optimal Management of Chronic Wet Cough in Aboriginal Children Across Australia From the Perspective of Health Care Providers: A Qualitative Study
Gloria T. Y. Lau, Pamela Laird, Robyn Aitken, Melanie Barwick, Liam Bedford, Emily R. Bowden, Corey Dalton, Jamie Everingham, Angela Fuery, Reece Griffin, Neha Jain, Mina Kinghorn, Renae Knapp, Gabrielle B. McCallum, Peter Morris, Richard Norman, Peter C. Richmond, Aarti Saiganesh, Slade Sibosado, Maree Toombs, Roz Walker, Joan Wilson, Anne B. Chang, André Schultz
Short-Term Safety of Concomitant Meningococcal B and National Immunisation Program Vaccines in Infants Aged < 15 Months: A Survey-Based Surveillance Study
Thuy Nguyen, Evelyn C. S. Tay, Michael Dymock, Thomas L. Snelling, Lucy Dawes, Julie Marsh, Yue Wu, Alan Leeb, Nicholas Wood, Lucy Deng
The GenV Biobank: Enabling Biological Research in a Large Longitudinal Population-Representative Cohort of Australian Newborns and Their Parents
Katherine Lange, Kim L. Powell, Yeukai Mangwiro, Tony Frugier, Donna T. Geddes, Melissa Wake, Richard Saffery
Watchful Waiting Compared With Immediate Antibiotics for Urban Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children With Uncomplicated Acute Otitis Media (WATCH): A Non-Inferiority Randomised Controlled Trial
Jennifer S. Reath, Hasantha Gunasekera, Sanja Lujic, Amanda J. Leach, Letitia Campbell, Robyn Walsh, Tim Usherwood, Geoffrey K. Spurling, Claudette A. Tyson, Deborah A. Askew, Kelvin Kong, Chelsea J. Watego, Peter Morris, Wendy Hu, Penelope A. Abbott
A Rare Case of Storage Mite Anaphylaxis in Infancy
Eliza Kluckow, Katie Frith