PEDIATRICS Vol. 56 No. 2 August 1975, pp. 340-341
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow P3Rs: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when P3Rs are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Burger, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Burger, R.

Lettrt To The Editor

Robert Burger M.D.1

1 Division of Urology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas

We knew that our article would incite and excite some of our colleagues, and it does us good to see the response.

As urologists, we do not usually get called upon to do neonatal circumcisions but instead see the "problem prepuce." We see the paraphimosis, the carcinomatous penis, the verruccous penis, and the infectious processes that start under the prepuce and can eventually destroy penile and scrotal architecture. For this reason, the urologist's view is different from that of the pediatrician or obstetrician and we consider neonatal circumcision to be medical prophylaxis.