15,773
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Continue building section with addition of Richards paper.
}}</ref></blockquote>
Richards (1996) discussed non-therapeutic circumcision of boys. He 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 name="richards1996">{{REFjournal |last=Richards |first=David |author-link= |title=Male Circumcision: Medical or Ritual? |journal=J Law Med |date=1996 |volume=3 |issue= |pages=371 |url=http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/richards/ |accessdate=2019-10-31}}</ref></blockquote>