The book is indeed quite informed and well researched. Mels Van Driel seems to cover every ailment to the penis imaginable, from ED to prostate cancer. It covers misconceptions, current, as well as historical, about the penis and its ailments.
There is however, one bone of contentment (pardon the pun) that I have with Mels Van Driel, and that is his hesitance to discuss the foreskin, which is quite a substantial, healthy, and normal part of basic male anatomy. While other parts of the penis are given their proper respect, some even getting their own heading, the foreskin, it seems, is only mentioned as it pertains to possible illness and its treatment. For example, he only mentions the foreskin as it pertains to the accumulation of smegma, or the development of the rare, but real problem of phimosis. This is unfair, as one never begins to talk about toes, for example, as being susceptible to fungus and ingrown toe-nails. One never begins to talk about a woman's breasts as organs that are susceptible to breast cancer. The fact that the female vulva can accumulate smegma is not the first thing talked about when presenting female anatomy.
Van Driel does correctly state that phimosis is quite rare, and that the foreskin does not usually retract until later years. He further elaborates on the fact that circumcision is not medically necessary, and that it is for the most part, performed as a matter of custom or religious conviction. He gives a brief, but accurate account of the history of the medicalization of circumcision from the Victorian Era to today, but does not challenge some of the latest assertions, i.e, that it works as an HIV preventative; he merely ends on the note that that is the direction in which the pendulum of "health circumcision" is swinging, without challenging the "studies" beign used to promote it that way, and who wrote them (ie, that they were written by Robert Bailey, long-time advocate of infant circumcision, and Jewish researcher Daniel Halperin, who's particular religious affiliation presents a conflict of interest.)
Furthermore, most pictures or diagrams in the book do not present male anatomy as it occurs in nature; most, if not all diagrams, portray the penis without the foreskin, as if that is the way it is found in nature. The female vulva is never shown without labia and/or the clitoris in diagrams. Lo, the only picture of the anatomically correct penis is that of the statue of Michelangelo's David on the front cover, though, even this rendition of the male penis has undergone the knife, according to Van Driel.
Well versed, but overall, this book is a bit of a disappointment, coming from a European source, who, one would assume, would be far better versed on the human prepuce than his American counterparts. I've yet to come across a publication or textbook that gives the foreskin, a normal, natural part of basic male anatomy, its due respect. Van Driel has failed to deliver.