In this issue, John Hutson has reiterated the conventional Western medical view that “the surgical argument for circumcision of all neonatal males at present is very weak” and he criticises many of the circumcisions performed in later childhood, without anaesthesia, as “physically cruel and potentially dangerous” [see page 238].¹ He is also of the opinion that “the diseases which circumcision is able to prevent are uncommon or even rare”. But therein he errs, and greatly errs.

He cites only two publications dealing with the protective effect of male circumcision against HIV infection, and makes no mention of the important recent meta-analysis of Weiss, Quigley, and Hayes² which shows conclusively from a large number of studies that …