Changes

Many Jews believe that the ritual of [[Brit Milah]] is required by the so-called [[Abrahamic covenant]], which is the most sacred ritual of [[Judaism]], although it is increasingly being questioned.<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Questioning-Circumcision-Perspective-Ronald-Goldman/dp/0964489562/</ref>Reports from [[Israel]] indicate that many Jewish parents are not having their sons [[circumcised]].

[[Davis Richards]] (1996) quoted Marion's case, which said:<blockquote>"[W]here there is a doubt about the therapeutic character of a proposed procedure, those who would be involved in the procedure may be at risk if they act merely upon a purported authorisation given by the parent or other guardian."<ref>Secretary, Department of Health and Community Services v JWB and SMB (1992) 175 CLR 218 at 275.</ref></blockquote>Richards concluded:<blockquote>Ritual male circumcision is non-therapeutic and is not warranted or justified by medical evidence. This form of mutilation should not be legally distinguished from female circumcision which is a form of female genital mutilation presently in the process of being prohibited throughout Australia and the Western world. As ritual male circumcision is non-therapeutic, may be against public policy, and clearly is not in the best interests of the child, a parent's consent may be vitiated, leaving persons involved in the procedure liable in negligence, notwithstanding parental religious beliefs. Alternatively, if a medical practitioner fails to give the parent reasonable information on the risks of and alternatives to ritual circumcision, the practitioner may also be liable in negligence.<ref>David Richards. [https://www.cirp.org/library/legal/richards/ Male Circumcision: Medical or Ritual?] 3 J Law Medicine 371 (1996).</ref></blockquote>[[J. Neville Turner]], Professor of Law at Melbourne's [https://www.monash.edu/ Monash University ] and president of [https://www.ozchild.org.au/ Oz Child], has argued that "circumcised boys may sue."<ref name="turner1996">{{REFjournal