Difference between revisions of "Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)"
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) (→Litigation: Add link.) |
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) (→Litigation: Fix broken link.) |
||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
==Litigation== | ==Litigation== | ||
| − | DOC intervened in the Oregon case of ''Boldt v. Boldt'', which technically was a child custody case, but actually about parental power to circumcise at will, by filing two ''amicus curiae'' educational briefs to help the court. As a result of DOC's intervention, the [https://www.courts.oregon.gov/courts/appellate/supreme/Pages/default.aspx| Oregon Supreme Court] remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to determine the child's wishes regarding circumcision.<ref>[https://www.courtlistener.com/ | + | DOC intervened in the Oregon case of ''Boldt v. Boldt'', which technically was a child custody case, but actually about parental power to circumcise at will, by filing two ''amicus curiae'' educational briefs to help the court. As a result of DOC's intervention, the [https://www.courts.oregon.gov/courts/appellate/supreme/Pages/default.aspx| Oregon Supreme Court] remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to determine the child's wishes regarding circumcision.<ref>[https://www.courtlistener.com/html/2008/01/2/boldt_and_boldt_2.html| In the Matter of the Marriage of James H. Boldt]. 176 P.3d 388 (SC Oregon 2008).</ref> DOC's intervention was cited by the court in its written opinion. The trial court determined that the child did not want to be circumcised and custody was changed from the father to the mother. This landmark case received critical comment in the medical ethics literature.<ref>{{REFweb |
|url=http://www.circinfo.org/Boldt_case.html | |url=http://www.circinfo.org/Boldt_case.html | ||
|title=American legal precedent confirms child’s right to reject circumcision: The case of Boldt v. Boldt | |title=American legal precedent confirms child’s right to reject circumcision: The case of Boldt v. Boldt | ||
Revision as of 15:51, 27 September 2019
The organization Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.) - Physicians for Genital Integrity supports the WWDOGA. D.O.C. has members in 50 States, 12 Canadian Provinces and Territories, and in nations on six continents. DOC is headquartered in Seattle, Washington, United States. DOC combines expertise in medicine with expertise in law. Contributions to DOC are tax-deductible charitable contributions. DOC is a member of Child Rights Information Network. DOC claims members on six continents.
They are an international network of physicians dedicated to protecting the genital integrity and eventual autonomy of all children, serving both health professionals and the public through education, support, and advocacy.[1]
Contents
Board of Directors and Advisors
- George C. Denniston, founder and President
- Mark Reiss, Executive Vice-President
- George Hill, Vice-President for Medical Science and Bioethics
- John V. Geisheker, Executive Director and General Counsel
- Zenas Baer, Member
- Adrienne Carmack, Member
- Gillian Longley, Member
- Mathias Masem, Member
- Amanda Morse, Member
- James L. Snyder Member
- Michaelle Wetteland, Member
- Michelle Storms, Advisor
- Gabriel Symonds, Advisor
- John W. Travis, Advisor
History
DOC was founded by University of Washington Medical School Professor George C. Denniston, MD, MPH, in 1995 to support genital integrity for children and to discourage the surgical genital modification for cultural practices.
Governance
Doctors Opposing Circumcision is governed by a board of directors. As of 2019, Denniston served as chairman of the board and president and John V. Geisheker, J.D., served as executive director.
Litigation
DOC intervened in the Oregon case of Boldt v. Boldt, which technically was a child custody case, but actually about parental power to circumcise at will, by filing two amicus curiae educational briefs to help the court. As a result of DOC's intervention, the Oregon Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to determine the child's wishes regarding circumcision.[2] DOC's intervention was cited by the court in its written opinion. The trial court determined that the child did not want to be circumcised and custody was changed from the father to the mother. This landmark case received critical comment in the medical ethics literature.[3]
External links
Official website. Retrieved 18 September 2019
References
- ↑ (2019).
Mission Statement
, D.O.C.. Retrieved 18 September 2019. - ↑ In the Matter of the Marriage of James H. Boldt. 176 P.3d 388 (SC Oregon 2008).
- ↑
American legal precedent confirms child’s right to reject circumcision: The case of Boldt v. Boldt
, Circumcision Information Australia. Retrieved error.