15,990
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Potential civil and criminal liability: Add text and citations.
}}</ref>
== Potential civil and criminal liability ==
[[Davis Richards]] (1996) quoted Marion's case, which said:
<blockquote>
"[W]here there is a doubt about the therapeutic character of a proposed procedure, those who would be involved in the procedure may be at risk if they act merely upon a purported authorisation given by the parent or other guardian."<ref>Secretary, Department of Health and Community Services v JWB and SMB (1992) 175 CLR 218 at 275.</ref>
</blockquote>
Richards concluded:
<blockquote>
Ritual male circumcision is non-therapeutic and is not warranted or justified by medical evidence. This form of mutilation should not be legally distinguished from female circumcision which is a form of female genital mutilation presently in the process of being prohibited throughout Australia and the Western world. As ritual male circumcision is non-therapeutic, may be against public policy, and clearly is not in the best interests of the child, a parent's consent may be vitiated, leaving persons involved in the procedure liable in negligence, notwithstanding parental religious beliefs. Alternatively, if a medical practitioner fails to give the parent reasonable information on the risks of and alternatives to ritual circumcision, the practitioner may also be liable in negligence.<ref>David Richards. [https://www.cirp.org/library/legal/richards/ Male Circumcision: Medical or Ritual?] 3 J Law Medicine 371 (1996).</ref>
</blockquote>
[[J. Neville Turner]], Professor of Law at Melbourne's Monash University and president of Oz Child, has argued that "circumcised boys may sue."<ref name="turner1996">{{REFjournal
|last=Turner