Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Authors’ response to Dr John Eggleton’s letter
  1. Chantal Cox-George1,
  2. Susan Bewley2
  1. 1 St George’s Hospital, London, UK
  2. 2 Women’s Health Academic Centre, King’s College London, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Chantal Cox-George, St George’s Hospital, London SW17 0QT, UK; Chantal Cox-George

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

We thank Dr Eggleton for his interest1 in our article,2 and would encourage readers to return to the original article and come to their own conclusions as to what we did, or didn’t, say and where we were quoting other sources. We disagree with the false comparison between the human rights of homosexual or transgender citizens and tolerance of sex robots; the public too have more nuanced concerns.3 Our article attempted to analyse the purported health claims; as it stands, there is an ‘absence of evidence’ that sex robots carry any health benefit. Without evidence to support his assertions, Dr Eggleton’s consultation room anecdotes carry little weight. It is a counsel of despair to suggest that patients with physical and mental issues cannot form sexual relations; recent work suggests men who do buy sex score higher on measures of impersonal sex and hostile masculinity rather than being unable or unattractive.4 We called for further research in this sphere and, until then, merely advised patients and healthcare professionals to exercise caution.



  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.