The case against neonatal circumcision

Sir,—I have recently retired from some 15 years as the part-time medical officer of a large boys’ school. Having read your leading article (5 May, p 1163) about circumcision I regret that I did not keep statistics and that a clinical impression will have to suffice.

At school entry at age 11, very few (other than Jews) had been circumcised. Quite a lot, between 10% and 40% had foreskins which would not easily retract. None of these had any history of pain or difficulty in micturition. I watched the first batches annually and anxiously, but soon learnt that by age 14 or 15 nearly all had become normally retractable. I only recall two circumcisions, with an annual intake of about 100. Obviously nearly all of those had preputial adhesions and no phimosis. Probably a vigorous and painful examination at the age of 11 would have found the rare true phimosis sooner. I thought, and still think, it unjustifiable and indeed contraindicated. What are the experiences of other school medical officers?

E B Grogono

Woodford Green, Essex 1G8 9QJ