[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
Other Articles
April 10, 1937


JAMA. 1937;108(15):1280. doi:10.1001/jama.1937.02780150054020

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.


To the Editor.—  In his letter in The Journal, Nov. 7, 1936, page 1581, Dr. Max Huhner disagrees with certain observations reported by me in an article on "Duration of Sperm Cell Migration in the Uterine Secretions" in The Journal, June 27, 1936, page 2221. He supports an opinion given by him in 1921 to the effect that demonstration of living sperm cells in the cervical canal is a more accurate evaluation of male fertility than the examination of the direct condom specimen.I desire to stress the important fact that an unfavorable appraisal of the husband's fertility, based solely on deficient motility or complete necrospermia, should never be made from a condom specimen. This statement is supported by ample evidence that the chemical constituents of certain condoms are deleterious to the semen in varying degrees and may impair or suspend sperm activity within a few moments. This condition is

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview