Boldt v. Boldt: Difference between revisions
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) Add information on beginnings, quote by Geisheker; comment by Diekema. |
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) →Commentary on Boldt v. Boldt: Add NOCIRC comment. |
||
| Line 131: | Line 131: | ||
There has been a fair amount of commentary on this case. | There has been a fair amount of commentary on this case. | ||
The 2009 NOCIRC Annual Newsletter commented: | |||
<blockquote> | |||
The US Supreme Court in October turned down a father’s petition in Boldt v Boldt. The boy’s father, who converted to Judaism and wants his son circumcised, was unhappy with the decision of the Oregon Supreme Court to determine the wishes of the child, and appealed to the US Supreme Court, alleging the child’s wishes are irrelevant. Fortunately, the right of the boy was paramount in the court’s decision. | |||
</blockquote> | |||
Dougglas Diekema, a pediatric medical ethicist commented: | Dougglas Diekema, a pediatric medical ethicist commented: | ||