Difference between revisions of "Literature"

From IntactiWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (swapped out FGM and MGM literature to separate articles)
m
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
{{Incomplete}}
 
== [[Literature about female genital mutilation (FGM)]] ==
 
== [[Literature about female genital mutilation (FGM)]] ==
 +
[Please click on the section title.]
  
 
== [[Literature about male genital mutilation (MGM)]] ==
 
== [[Literature about male genital mutilation (MGM)]] ==
 +
[Please click on the section title.]
  
 
== Against the [[German Circumcision Act]] ==
 
== Against the [[German Circumcision Act]] ==

Latest revision as of 18:35, 3 October 2019

Work in progress: The following information does not claim to be complete. More content will be added gradually.

Literature about female genital mutilation (FGM)

[Please click on the section title.]

Literature about male genital mutilation (MGM)

[Please click on the section title.]

Against the German Circumcision Act

  • Manok, Andreas, The medically not indicated circumcision of the male child – Legal situation before and after the adoption of § 1631d Civil Code with special consideration of fundamental rights, Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2015 (Writings on health law [SGR], vol. 34). 217 pages. ISBN 978-3-428-14584-3.[1]
The author examines the question of the legality of unindexed medical circumcisions of male minors at the behest of their parents. After a cultural historical overview and consideration of medical aspects he fully verifies whether the amendmend § 1631d to the Civil Code by the federal legislature in reaction to the so-called circumcision judgment of Cologne is constitutional. He concludes that § 1631d BGB is unconstitutional in several aspects. Firstly, the fundamental right of minors to physical integrity predominates the parental edicuation right and their fundamental right to freedom of religion, as far as scope and the irreversibility of the intervention are concerned. On the other hand, it is an unjustified discrimination against male minors because of their gender, because the operation on them should be allowed while even mild forms of female circumcision are under threat of punishment by § 226a Criminal Code.
– Dr. Georg Neureither (religion-weltanschauung-recht.net)[2]
  • Franz, Matthias (publisher), The circumcision of boys - A sad legacy, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014. 448 pages with 11 figures, brochured. ISBN 978-3-525-40455-3.[3]
The debate about the ritual, not medically justified genital cutting of small boys who are not able to consent, now also takes place in Germany, after the judgment of the Cologne Regional Court in May 2012. It moves in the tension of the fundamental rights to freedom of religion on the one hand and to physical integrity on the other. The intensity of the debate suggests profound anxieties and conflicts. It is about the question of whether it is in a secular democracy still appropriate to safeguard the group and religious identity of adults by inflicting little boys pain and fear, to expose them to significant health risks and irreversible injury of the genital area. Painful physical, sexual and psychological long-term consequences of circumcision are possible and documented. In this book, affected ones, doctors, lawyers, psychoanalysts, politicians and other professionals express criticism of the boy circumcision and are committed to the thought of protection of children. they promote a debate on scientific and legal basis.
– Promotion text (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht)[4]

Bases for juristiction

See also

References