Difference between revisions of "Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)"

From IntactiWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
Line 40: Line 40:
 
==Litigation==
 
==Litigation==
  
−
DOC intervened in the Oregon case of ''Boldt v. Boldt'', which technically was a child custody case, but actually about parental power to circumcise at will, by filing two ''amicus curiae'' educational briefs to help the court. As a result of DOC's intervention, the [https://www.courts.oregon.gov/courts/appellate/supreme/Pages/default.aspx| Oregon Supreme Court] remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to determine the child's wishes regarding circumcision.<ref>[https://www.courtlistener.com/html/2008/01/2/boldt_and_boldt_2.html| In the Matter of the Marriage of James H. Boldt]. 176 P.3d 388 (SC Oregon 2008).</ref>  DOC's intervention was cited by the court in its written opinion. The trial court determined that the child did not want to be circumcised and custody was changed from the father to the mother. This landmark case received critical comment in the medical ethics literature.<ref>{{REFweb
+
DOC intervened in the Oregon case of ''[[Boldt vs Boldt]]'', which technically was a child custody case, but actually about parental power to circumcise at will, by filing two ''amicus curiae'' educational briefs to help the court. As a result of DOC's intervention, the [https://www.courts.oregon.gov/courts/appellate/supreme/Pages/default.aspx| Oregon Supreme Court] remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to determine the child's wishes regarding circumcision.<ref>[https://www.courtlistener.com/html/2008/01/2/boldt_and_boldt_2.html| In the Matter of the Marriage of James H. Boldt]. 176 P.3d 388 (SC Oregon 2008).</ref>  DOC's intervention was cited by the court in its written opinion. The trial court determined that the child did not want to be circumcised and custody was changed from the father to the mother. This landmark case received critical comment in the medical ethics literature.<ref>{{REFweb
 
  |url=http://www.circinfo.org/Boldt_case.html
 
  |url=http://www.circinfo.org/Boldt_case.html
 
  |title=American legal precedent confirms child’s right to reject circumcision: The case of Boldt v. Boldt  
 
  |title=American legal precedent confirms child’s right to reject circumcision: The case of Boldt v. Boldt  

Revision as of 04:51, 27 November 2019

Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.) - official logo

The organization Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.) - Physicians for Genital Integrity supports the WWDOGA. D.O.C. has members in 50 States, 12 Canadian Provinces and Territories, and in nations on six continents. DOC is headquartered in Seattle, Washington, United States. DOC combines expertise in medicine with expertise in law. Contributions to DOC are tax-deductible charitable contributions. DOC is a member of Child Rights Information Network. DOC claims members on six continents.

They are an international network of physicians dedicated to protecting the genital integrity and eventual autonomy of all children, serving both health professionals and the public through education, support, and advocacy.[1]

Board of Directors and Advisors

History

DOC was founded by University of Washington Medical School Professor George C. Denniston, MD, MPH, in 1995 to support genital integrity for children and to discourage the surgical genital modification for cultural practices.

Governance

Doctors Opposing Circumcision is governed by a board of directors. As of 2019, Denniston served as chairman of the board and president and John V. Geisheker, J.D., served as executive director.

Litigation

DOC intervened in the Oregon case of Boldt vs Boldt, which technically was a child custody case, but actually about parental power to circumcise at will, by filing two amicus curiae educational briefs to help the court. As a result of DOC's intervention, the Oregon Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to determine the child's wishes regarding circumcision.[2] DOC's intervention was cited by the court in its written opinion. The trial court determined that the child did not want to be circumcised and custody was changed from the father to the mother. This landmark case received critical comment in the medical ethics literature.[3]

External links

References

  1. ↑ REFweb (2019). Mission Statement, D.O.C.. Retrieved 18 September 2019.
  2. ↑ In the Matter of the Marriage of James H. Boldt. 176 P.3d 388 (SC Oregon 2008).
  3. ↑ REFweb American legal precedent confirms child’s right to reject circumcision: The case of Boldt v. Boldt, Circumcision Information Australia. Retrieved 27 September 2019.
Retrieved from "https://en.intactiwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Doctors_Opposing_Circumcision_(D.O.C.)&oldid=10568"