I would like to thank Dr Adriaan Van Es for his commentary (1) on my article (2). To start with, let me make one thing clear: I am not sure why he thinks that I am condoning the practice of penal amputation. As I clearly state in my conclusion, the arguments that may (or may not) justify penal amputation are “abhorrent” in liberal societies. We are on the same side here. But what of those who live in less secular societies where religious faith may be unquestioned? In my opinion, van Es has resorted to a typical example of a “tortured form of ethical logic” (3), which researchers from countries that have different value systems and different problems have deplored, albeit in a different context.