In response to an argument against penile transplantation
Moodley and Rennie’s paper arguing against penile transplantation stated out of context arguments and wrongly quoted statements. The cost of penile transplantation is much less than portrayed. The burden of cases is much less than is communicated. The men on our penis transplantation programme repre...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
BMJ Publ.
2020
|
| In: |
Journal of medical ethics
Year: 2020, Volume: 46, Issue: 1, Pages: 63-64 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | Moodley and Rennie’s paper arguing against penile transplantation stated out of context arguments and wrongly quoted statements. The cost of penile transplantation is much less than portrayed. The burden of cases is much less than is communicated. The men on our penis transplantation programme represent the poorest of the poor and are one of the most discriminated against groups of humans on earth. The false hope said to be created by Moodley is indeed not false hope at all as there is a real possibility that most patients on our waiting list may be transplanted. Moodley argues that government has, in the context of penile transplantation, no duty to cure those who lost a penis after ritual circumcision, but only an obligation to prevent this from happening. A ‘yuk’ reaction, similarly described in facial transplantation, may be present in colleagues arguing against penile transplantation. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1473-4257 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Journal of medical ethics
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2018-104795 |