Ethics of non-therapeutic child circumcision: Difference between revisions

← Older edit Newer edit →

@@ Line 145: / Line 145: @@
   |date=2019
   |accessdate=2021-06-29
+}}</ref>
+Lempert et al. (2022) criticized the 2019 BMA guidance for "serious weaknesses". They listed:
+# the absence of an explicit stance on the underlying ethical status of NPC, coupled with an implicit permissive stance,<br>
+# an incoherent and impracticable analysis of the child’s best interests,<br>
+# unbalanced guidance regarding cultural issues,<br>
+# unbalanced guidance regarding scientific issues,<br>
+# unjustified differential treatment of children of the same sex,<br>
+# unjustified differential treatment of children of different sexes,<br>
+# problems with child safeguarding, and (8) problems with regulation and training. <br>
+# an unjustified presumption of lawfulness of NPC of minors and<br>
+#) failure adequately to address recent case law.<ref name="lempert2022">{{REFjournal
+ |last=Lempert
+ |first=Antony
+ |init=A
+ |author-link=Antony Lempert
+ |last2=Chegwidden
+ |first2=James
+ |init2=J
+ |author2-link=James Chegwidden
+ |last3=Steinfeld
+ |first3=Rebecca
+ |init3=R
+ |author3-link=Rebecca Steinfeld
+ |last4=Earp
+ |first4=Brian D.
+ |init4=BD
+ |author4-link=Brian D. Earp
+ |etal=no
+ |title=Non-therapeutic penile circumcision of minors: Current controversies in UK law and medical ethics.
+ |journal=Clinical Ethics
+ |location=
+ |date=2022-05
+ |season=
+ |volume
+ |issue=
+ |article=
+ |page=
+ |pages=
+ |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360642209_Non-therapeutic_Penile_Circumcision_of_Minors_Current_Controversies_in_UK_Law_and_Medical_Ethics
+ |archived=
+ |quote=
+ |pubmedID=
+ |pubmedCID=
+ |DOI=
+ |accessdate=2022-05-20
 }}</ref>