Article info
Response
In response to an argument against penile transplantation
- Correspondence to Dr André Van der Merwe, Division of Urology, Faculty of Medicine and Healthcare Sciences, Stellenbosch University and Tygerberg Academic Hospital, Cape Town 7505, South Africa; arvdm{at}sun.ac.za
Citation
In response to an argument against penile transplantation
Publication history
- Received February 6, 2018
- Revised November 15, 2018
- Accepted January 10, 2019
- First published February 8, 2019.
Online issue publication
January 09, 2022
Article Versions
- Previous version (9 January 2022).
- You are viewing the most recent version of this article.
Request permissions
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Copyright information
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Other content recommended for you
- Penile transplantation as an appropriate response to botched traditional circumcisions in South Africa: an argument against
- Delineating the role of penile transplantation when traditional male circumcisions go wrong in South Africa
- Facial allograft transplantation, personal identity and subjectivity
- Until they have faces: the ethics of facial allograft transplantation
- Vascularised composite allotransplantation: implications for the Defence Medical Services
- Justifying surgery’s last taboo: the ethics of face transplants
- Equity in access to facial transplantation
- ‘A Procedure Without a Problem’, or the face transplant that didn’t happen. The Royal Free, the Royal College of Surgeons and the challenge of surgical firsts
- Face transplantation for the blind: more than being blind in a sighted world
- Uterus transplantation: ethical and regulatory challenges