In their article “Referrals from primary care with foreskin symptoms: Room for improvement”
[
[1]
], Sutton et al. show an extraordinary disregard for the diagnostic abilities of general
practitioners. We know of no other speciality in which 75% of referrals would be dismissed
in such a cavalier fashion. Following the late AM Rickwood, a vehement opponent of
circumcision [
[2]
], they will only circumcise for recurrent attacks of balanitis, yet 110 years ago Sir William Whitla wrote that a single attack
of balanitis necessitates circumcision [
[3]
]. Why force a boy to suffer a painful condition multiple times before he gets the
simple operation he needs? After all, each attack will require more antibiotics and
thus more expense.To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Journal of Pediatric SurgeryAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Referrals from primary care with foreskin symptoms: Room for improvement.J Pediatr Surg. 2022; (Online ahead of print, Oct 31)
- Towards evidence based circumcision of English boys: survey of trends in practice.BMJ. 2000; 321: 792-793
- A dictionary of treatment.5th ed. Tindall & Cox, London, Baillière1912: 1204pp
- The fate of the foreskin.BMJ. 1949; 2: 1433-1437
- Costs and effectiveness of neonatal male circumcision.Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2012; 166: 910-918
- IMC circumcision clinic. 2022
Article info
Publication history
Published online: December 27, 2022
Accepted:
December 15,
2022
Received:
December 15,
2022
Publication stage
In Press Corrected ProofIdentification
Copyright
© 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
