United Kingdom: Difference between revisions
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) m →Conclusion: Revise citations. |
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) →The guidance of the British Medical Association: Add text and citation. |
||
| Line 770: | Line 770: | ||
* 1996 [http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/bma/ Circumcision of Male Infants: Guidance for Doctors] | * 1996 [http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/bma/ Circumcision of Male Infants: Guidance for Doctors] | ||
The case of ''Re J (1999)'', ''Re S'', and the ''Human Rights Act 1998'' caused the BMA to revise its guidance to doctors and issued a new guidance in 2003. The guidance was further revised in 2006. | The case of ''Re J (1999)'', ''Re S'', and the ''Human Rights Act 1998'' caused the BMA to revise its guidance to doctors and issued a new guidance in 2003. | ||
Keele University law professors Fox & Thomson 2005 reviewed the 2003 BMA statement and cited legal deficiencies in that statement.<ref>{{REFjournal | |||
|last=Fox | |||
|first=Marie | |||
|init=M | |||
|author-link= | |||
|last2=Thomson | |||
|init2=M | |||
|author2-link= | |||
|etal=no | |||
|title=A covenant with the status quo? Male circumcision and the new BMA guidance to doctors | |||
|journal=J Med Ethics | |||
|location= | |||
|date=2005 | |||
|volume=31 | |||
|issue=8 | |||
|pages=463-9 | |||
|url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1734197/pdf/v031p00463.pdf | |||
|archived= | |||
|quote= | |||
|pubmedID=16076971 | |||
|pubmedCID=1734197 | |||
|DOI=10.1136/jme.2004.009340 | |||
|accessdate=2021-09-11 | |||
}} | |||
</ref> The BMA accepted the criticism, so the guidance was further revised in 2006. | |||
* 2003 (with changes in 2006 indicated) [http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/bma2003/ The law & ethics of male circumcision - guidance for doctors] | * 2003 (with changes in 2006 indicated) [http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/bma2003/ The law & ethics of male circumcision - guidance for doctors] | ||