Sir: It does seem ironic that the foreskins of newly circumcised boys are being harvested by a commercial company and processed to provide skin banks for replacement surgery ("Scientists plan market in spare body parts", 8 October), while at the same time a growing band of unhappy men are seeking to restore the foreskins which were removed without their consent in infancy.
It has always been a mystery why circumcision, which, as the medical profession admits, has no medical justification, should still be so prevalent. I wonder how the unwilling donors will feel about it when they are old enough to know what has happened? Does the benefit to those with foot ulcers justify the mutilation of small boys?
R B WARBURTON