Division of Urology, Faculty of Medicine and Healthcare Sciences, Stellenbosch University and Tygerberg Academic Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa.
J Med Ethics. 2020 Jan;46(1):63-64. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2018-104795. Epub 2019 Feb 8.
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.
莫迪利和伦尼的论文反对阴茎移植，提出了断章取义的论点和错误引用的陈述。阴茎移植的成本远低于描述的那样。病例负担远低于所传达的。我们的阴茎移植项目中的男性代表了最贫穷的人，是地球上最受歧视的人群之一。莫迪利所说的虚假希望根本不是虚假的希望，因为我们的等候名单上的大多数患者很有可能接受移植。莫迪利认为，政府在阴茎移植的背景下，没有义务治愈那些因割礼而失去阴茎的人，而只是有义务防止这种情况发生。类似地，在对面部移植的反对意见中，可能会出现“厌恶”反应。
