In performing circumcision many surgeons hold the clamp or dressing forceps which protect the glans inclined obliquely downwards and forwards, so as to leave a portion of the prepuce in the neighbourhood of the frænum unremoved. As one of the main advantages claimed for the operation is the prevention of future infection by retention of morbid material in the preputial folds, such a practice would seem to indicate a lurking disbelief in the validity of this pretension. If it be reasonable and right to excise the structure on these grounds, and if that proceeding be attended by such salutary effects; it is only logical not to do things by halves, but to make the excision as complete as possible. Thus Liston made his section near the frænum, 'so as to retain the skin on the glans, which is of advantage.' The use of the _elastic ligature_, and of the _écraseurs_, both ordinary and galvanic, for the performance of circumcision, are cruel and fantastic modes of effecting that object, which hardly need any expression of condemnation; and which it is difficult to believe can ever have been seriously advocated. Keyes (_Diseases of the Urinary Organs_, 1888), after breaking up adhesions with an oiled probe, marks an aniline line around the foreskin, and amputates the skin, &c., in front of this mark; thus previously estimating the amount of tissue to be removed.[13] For operations involving the amputation of the whole, or nearly the whole prepuce, the following advantages are claimed:-- (_a_) Greatly enhanced local cleanliness throughout after-life. (_b_) Greater chastity; and the preclusion of immoral personal habits. (_c_) A smaller liability to venereal contagion in after-life. (_d_) A diminished proneness to eventual cancerous disease.