Circumcision legal commentary: Difference between revisions

Line 378:

}}

* Van Howe, Svoboda, Dywer, & Price (1999), a medico-legal team discuss the legal issues of non-therapeutic circumcision of boys.

* [[Robert S. Van Howe|Van Howe]], [[J. Steven Svoboda|Svoboda]], [[James G. Dwyer|Dywer]], & [[Christopher P. Price|Price]] (1999), a medico-legal team discuss the legal issues of non-therapeutic circumcision of boys.

: {{REFjournal

|last=Van Howe

Line 502:

}}

* Svoboda, Van Howe & Dwyer (2000) discuss legal issues inherent with consent for non-therapeutic circumcision of boys.

* [[J. Steven Svoboda|Svoboda]], [[Robert S. Van Howe|Van Howe]] & [[James G. Dwyer|Dwyer]] (2000) discuss legal issues inherent with consent for non-therapeutic circumcision of boys.

: {{REFjournal

|last=Svoboda

Line 790:

|accessdate=2020-05-13

}}

* Svoboda, Adler, and Van Howe point out that physicians have a legal duty to protect children from unnecessary interventions. They suggest that under existing United States law and international human rights declarations as well, circumcision already violates boys´ absolute rights to equal protection, bodily integrity, autonomy, and freedom to choose their own religion.

* [[J. Steven Svoboda|Svoboda]], [[Peter W. Adler|Adler]], and [[Robert S. Van Howe|Van Howe]] point out that physicians have a legal duty to protect children from unnecessary interventions. They suggest that under existing United States law and international human rights declarations as well, circumcision already violates boys´ absolute rights to equal protection, bodily integrity, autonomy, and freedom to choose their own religion.

: {{REFjournal

|last=Svoboda

Line 892:

}}

* Adler, Van Howe, Wisdom & Daase (2020) examined male non-therapeutic circumcision as fraud.

* [[Peter W. Adler|Adler]], [[Robert S. Van Howe|Van Howe]], Wisdom & Daase (2020) examined male non-therapeutic circumcision as fraud.

: {{REFjournal

|last=Adler

@@ Line 378: / Line 378: @@
 }}
-* Van Howe, Svoboda, Dywer, & Price (1999), a medico-legal team discuss the legal issues of non-therapeutic circumcision of boys.
+* [[Robert S. Van Howe|Van Howe]], [[J. Steven Svoboda|Svoboda]], [[James G. Dwyer|Dywer]], & [[Christopher P. Price|Price]] (1999), a medico-legal team discuss the legal issues of non-therapeutic circumcision of boys.
 : {{REFjournal
   |last=Van Howe
@@ Line 502: / Line 502: @@
 }}
-* Svoboda, Van Howe & Dwyer (2000) discuss legal issues inherent with consent for non-therapeutic circumcision of boys.
+* [[J. Steven Svoboda|Svoboda]], [[Robert S. Van Howe|Van Howe]] & [[James G. Dwyer|Dwyer]] (2000) discuss legal issues inherent with consent for non-therapeutic circumcision of boys.
 : {{REFjournal
   |last=Svoboda
@@ Line 790: / Line 790: @@
   |accessdate=2020-05-13
 }}
-* Svoboda, Adler, and Van Howe point out that physicians have a legal duty to protect children from unnecessary interventions. They suggest that under existing United States law and international human rights declarations as well, circumcision already violates boys´ absolute rights to equal protection, bodily integrity, autonomy, and freedom to choose their own religion.
+* [[J. Steven Svoboda|Svoboda]], [[Peter W. Adler|Adler]], and [[Robert S. Van Howe|Van Howe]] point out that physicians have a legal duty to protect children from unnecessary interventions. They suggest that under existing United States law and international human rights declarations as well, circumcision already violates boys´ absolute rights to equal protection, bodily integrity, autonomy, and freedom to choose their own religion.
 : {{REFjournal
   |last=Svoboda
@@ Line 892: / Line 892: @@
 }}
-* Adler, Van Howe, Wisdom & Daase (2020) examined male non-therapeutic circumcision as fraud.
+* [[Peter W. Adler|Adler]], [[Robert S. Van Howe|Van Howe]], Wisdom & Daase (2020) examined male non-therapeutic circumcision as fraud.
 : {{REFjournal
   |last=Adler