Difference between revisions of "United Kingdom"

From IntactiWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Legal matters: Remove section.)
(→‎International human rights law in the United Kingdom)
Line 738: Line 738:
  
 
The UK signed the ''Convention on the Rights of the Child'' (CRC) on 19 April 1990 an formally ratified the CRC treaty on 16 December 1991.<ref name="ratstatus" /> Article 2 of the CRC require the UK to respect and ensure the rights specified in the CRC to each child within its jurisdiction.
 
The UK signed the ''Convention on the Rights of the Child'' (CRC) on 19 April 1990 an formally ratified the CRC treaty on 16 December 1991.<ref name="ratstatus" /> Article 2 of the CRC require the UK to respect and ensure the rights specified in the CRC to each child within its jurisdiction.
 +
===Human Rights Act 1998===
 +
The United Kingdom has long been a member of the [https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal Council of Europe] and therefore subject to the [https://rm.coe.int/1680a2353d European Convention on Human Rights]. Under that Convention the United Kingdom may be sued in the [https://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=home&c European Court of Human Rights] (Strasbourg) for alleged human rights violations.
 +
 +
Certain parts of the Convention seems applicable to the non-therapeutic circumcision of minor boys:
 +
 +
* Article 3: Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment
 +
* Article 5: Everyone has a right to liberty and security of person.
 +
* Article 8: Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
 +
 +
The case of ''A v. United Kingdom'' (1998) involved the beating of a child with a garden cane. The court ruled:
 +
<blockquote>
 +
States required to take measures designed to ensure individuals not ill-treated in breach of Article 3 by other private individuals – children entitled to protection, through effective deterrence, against such treatment.<ref>{{REFdocument
 +
|title=A. v United Kingdom. [1998] 2 FLR 959
 +
|url=http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/A_v_UK1998/
 +
|contribution=
 +
|last=
 +
|first=
 +
|publisher=Circumcision Reference Library
 +
|format=
 +
|date=1998
 +
|accessdate=2021-09-07
 +
}}</ref>
 +
</blockquote>
 +
The case clearly established the right of children to protection. Nevertheless, no known cases have applied international human rights law specifically to the practice of non-therapeutic child circumcision in the UK.
 +
 +
The human rights provisions of the Convention have now been brought into domestic law by the [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents Human Rights Act 1998], so violations of human rights law could be litigated in the domestic courts of the UK.
  
 
==The ethics of non-therapeutic circumcision==
 
==The ethics of non-therapeutic circumcision==

Revision as of 17:00, 12 September 2021

Flag of the United Kingdom

The United Kingdom (UK) was the scene of early efforts to promote male circumcision. It influenced the adoption of male circumcision in other English-speaking nations. Later it was the scene of efforts to reduce and eliminate the practice.

While Jews residing in the UK practiced ritual circumcision of boys on the eighth day of life in accordance with the Abrahamic covenant, the practice was nearly unknown among gentiles.

Introduction of circumcision as a medical practice

French physician Claude-François Lallemand (1790 – 1854) recommended circumcision as a treatment for spermatorrhea (excessive, involuntary ejaculation), which was then believed to be a disease. Lallemand influenced later English physicians such as William Acton.[1]

Edward H. Dixon (1845) advocated circumcision to prevent masturbation.[2]

Sir Jonathan Hutchinson (1828 – 1913) was an English surgeon, dermatologist, ophthalmologist, pathologist and venereologist.[3] Darby describes Hutchinson as a puritanical and gloomy Quaker who disapproved of masturbation on moral grounds.[4] Sir Jonathan advocated circumcision to prevent syphilis.[5]

Nathaniel Heckford, a paediatrician at the East London Hospital for Children, wrote Circumcision as a Remedial Measure in Certain Cases of Epilepsy, Chorea, etc. (1865), in which he argued that circumcision acted as an effective remedial measure in the prevention of certain cases of epilepsy and chorea.[6]

Sir Jonathan Hutchinson started to promote circumcision to prevent masturbation in 1890.[4] He first published A Plea for Circumcison,[7], followed by On circumcision as a preventive of masturbation.[8]

Sir Jonathan was not yet done. He published yet another article On Circumcision in 1893.[9]

Sir Frederick Treves (1853 – 1923), a prominent Harley Street surgeon, who is known to us by The Elephant Man film, wrote an operative manual in 1903 to educate other surgeons in the performance of the circumcision amputation.[10] The practice of male circumcision was well established in the United Kingdom as the nineteenth century ended.

Twentieth century

Sir Jonathan Hutchinson (1900) opened the twentieth century with an article advocating male circumcision as a way to decrease the pleasure of sex, and hence to discourage sexual immorality.[11]

Cockshut (1935) published a letter in the British Medical Journal that urged circumcision of all male infants because the "glans of the circumcised rapidly assumes a leathery texture less sensitive than skin." The advantage, according to Cockshut, is that masturbation would be reduced.[12]

Rickwood et al. (2000) reported that the incidence of boys circumcised reached 35 percent by the early 1930s.[13]

Reduction of practice

A national election was held in the United Kingdom at the end of World War II. The Labour Party gained a majority of the seats in Parliament and its leader, Clement Atlee, became prime minister. The party leaned to the left and supported social welfare. Aneurin Bevan was Minister of Health. The National Health Service (NHS) was created in 1948 to provide free medical treatment for all. Services were provided based on clinical need, not ability to pay.

Sir James Spence, a prominent senior British paediatrician, urged his younger colleague, Douglas Gairdner, to produce a paper on infant circumcision. The now famous classic paper, The fate of the foreskin: a study of circumcision, was published in the British Medical Journal on Christmas Eve, 1949. The paper reported 16 deaths per year from non-therapeutic infant circumcision and concluded in part: "The prepuce of the young infant should therefore be left in its natural state."[14]

The NHS provides male circumcision when there was a clinical need.[15] The NHS performs circumcisions on boys for therapeutic need.[16]

The British Medical Journal, the house organ of the British Medical Association, in an unsigned editorial in 1979, slammed the practice of child circumcision, calling it unnecessary, and citing the danger of contracting staphylococcal infection in the newborn nursery.[17] The editorial reported that the incidence of newborn circumcision in Britain had dropped from one-third in the 1930s to one fifth in 1949, to ten percent in 1963, and to six percent in 1975.[18]

Phimosis diagnosis issues

Fewer boys were being circumcised so there were more intact boys. The general practitioners (GPs) in the UK seemed to be unable to distinguish between true phimosis and developmentally non-retractile healthy foreskin and were referring numerous boys for unnecessary circumcision.

Rickwood et al. (1980) had provided guidance on diagnosis of phimosis. According to Rickwood et al. true phimosis occurs when the foreskin has been attacked by balanitis xerotica obliterans (BXO) (also known as lichen sclerosis). If BXO is not present then true phimosis does not exist.[19]

Several papers critical of phimosis diagnosis practice in the UK were published in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Rickwood & Walker (1989) reported that in the Mersey region (northwest England) "many boys are circumcised for development non-retractability of the prepuce rather than for true phimosis and that in consequence some two-thirds of the operations are unnecessary."[20] Griffiths & Frank (1992) also expressed concern regarding the apparent inability of general practitioners to distinguish between a true phimosis and a developmentally non-retractile foreskin. They pointed out, "Not surprisingly, the diagnostic inaccuracy was greatest when the referring doctor did not examine the patient."[21] Gordon & Collin (1993) attempted to cast some light in the darkness by providing factual information about actual indications for circumcision and how to distinguish between physiological and pathological phimosis.[22] Williams et al. (1993) complained that most of the 30,000 circumcisions that were being done in the UK were on boys under 15. They reported that of 69 boys referred by GPs, 29 had a healthy retractile foreskin, 30 had a healthy non-retractile foreskin, and only 9 had a phimosis requiring circumcision.[23]

In defence of the much criticised British GPs, it should be stated that the data they were provided by Douglas Gairdner regarding development of foreskin retractility was very inaccurate,[24] however this was not known at the time.

Cathcart et al. (2006) collected circumcision rates from 1997 through 2003. They reported a decline in the incidence of circumcision of about 20 percent over the period of their study, with about 10,000 circumcisions of boys per year at the end of the study. They commented that the circumcision rate for boys is still five times higher than the reported incidence of phimosis.[25]

Decline in circumcision practice continues

Rickwood & Walker (1989) reported that 21,000 circumcision were done annually on boys under 15 years of age,[20] so Cathcart et al. (2006) are finding a reduction of 53 percent,[25] although still much higher than it should be. It should be noted that manual stretching of the foreskin with the aid of topical steroid ointment to relieve phimosis had not yet entered general use.

The 2000 British National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal 2000) found that 15.8 percent of British males aged 16 to 44 reported being circumcised. The incidence of circumcision was highest in the men aged 40-44 at 19.6 percent [born 1956-60] and lowest in the group aged 16-19 [born 1981-84] at 11.7 percent. Men of ethnic minorities (except black Caribbeans) were significantly more likely to circumcised than those described as "white". Jews were 98.7 percent circumcised and Sikhs, Hindus, and Buddhists were only 9.8 percent circumcised.[26]

Legal matters

Early Development of circumcision law

The relevant statutes are the Offences Against the Person Act (1861) and the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.

A 1985 decision of the Law Lords ruled:

Having regard to the reality that a child became increasingly independent as it grew older and that parental authority dwindled correspondingly, the law did not recognise any rule of absolute parental authority until a fixed age. Instead, parental rights were recognised by the law only as long as they were needed for the protection of the child and such rights yielded to the child's right to make his own decisions when he reached a sufficient understanding and intelligence to be capable of making up his own mind.[27]

Gillick affirmed the right and duty of parents to protect their child.

Sebastian Poulter, a legal writer, in a book entitled English Criminal Law and Ethnic Minority Customs, stated:

"The basic right to bodily integrity which everyone possesses under the English common law means that any unlawful interference in this right amounts to an assault or battery, at the very least, and might in appropriate circumstances entail the statutory offence of grievous bodily harm. The question raised in cases of circumcision, excision or infibulation is whether the operation can be justified as constituting lawful as opposed to unlawful interference with this right."

"...although the matter is not entirely free from doubt, it seems that a parent may equally authorise a non-therapeutic operation, provided it is not actively against the child's interests. This would appear to have been the basis upon which the vast majority of male infants have been circumcised in this country with impunity from time immemorial.[sic]"

"It thus appears that, at common law, while the circumcision of male infants here is lawful, provided that parental consent has been given, no amount of parental agreement or support can legitimise the circumcision, excision or infibulation of a young girl in this country, unless the operation is for therapeutic purposes."[28]

Poulter's claims are controversial. Recent court decisions cast further doubt on their legitmacy.

Parliament in 1989 passed the Children Act 1989. This is a very extensive act to provide for the care, welfare and protection of persons under 18 years of age. The Children Act 1989 introduced the legal term significant harm.[29] One perhaps unexpected effect of the Children Act 1989 was to bring circumcision cases into family court when parents disagreed about circumcision of a son.

The Law Commission of England and Wales had proposed to recommend that circumcision of male children be made lawful. The late Christopher P. Price, solicitor, submitted a brief to the Law Commission in opposition to the proposal,[30] after which the proposal was dropped.

The Guardian (1999) reported the family law case of Re J (child's religious upbringing and circumcision)[31] in which the Muslim father wanted a son circumcised but the British mother did not. The Court of Appeals stated in part:

The judge said it was not in the best interests of the child to be circumcised, with its risk of pain and psychological damage which the boy would find hard to understand.

He said the boy might be traumatised by the operation. "The operation and the period leading up to it was also likely to be highly stressful to the mother."[32]

Forward into the 21st century

Welch solicitor Christopher P. Price led us into the 21st century with an essay highly critical of child non-therapeutic circumcision in every form.[33]

The family law case of Re B and G (children) (No 2) EWFC 3 (2015) was about two children in need of care. This required Judge Munby to consider both male and female circumcision. Judge Munby realised that male circumcision inflicted at least as much harm as lesser forms of female circumcision. This caused him to rule that male circumcision caused significant harm, which now allows courts to issue care orders to prevent male circumcision.

The case of L and B (2016) was a case in which parents disagreed about the circumcision of two boys. The Muslim father wanted the boys circumcised, however the court ruled that no order should be issued so the boys could decide for themselves when they are of age. In this highly significant case, Mrs. Justice Roberts took the decision away from either parents and gave it to the boys, thereby recognising the boys' right to self-determination. Her conclusion is entirely consistent with the rights of the child under human rights law. Her order also is entirely in accord with Resolution 1952 of the Council of Europe.[34]

International human rights law in the United Kingdom

The UK signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) on 16 September 1968 and formally ratified the ICCPR treaty on 20 May 1976.[35] Article 2 of the ICCPR requires the UK to apply and enforce the provisions of the ICCPR within its territory.

The UK signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) on 19 April 1990 an formally ratified the CRC treaty on 16 December 1991.[35] Article 2 of the CRC require the UK to respect and ensure the rights specified in the CRC to each child within its jurisdiction.

Human Rights Act 1998

The United Kingdom has long been a member of the Council of Europe and therefore subject to the European Convention on Human Rights. Under that Convention the United Kingdom may be sued in the European Court of Human Rights (Strasbourg) for alleged human rights violations.

Certain parts of the Convention seems applicable to the non-therapeutic circumcision of minor boys:

  • Article 3: Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment
  • Article 5: Everyone has a right to liberty and security of person.
  • Article 8: Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

The case of A v. United Kingdom (1998) involved the beating of a child with a garden cane. The court ruled:

States required to take measures designed to ensure individuals not ill-treated in breach of Article 3 by other private individuals – children entitled to protection, through effective deterrence, against such treatment.[36]

The case clearly established the right of children to protection. Nevertheless, no known cases have applied international human rights law specifically to the practice of non-therapeutic child circumcision in the UK.

The human rights provisions of the Convention have now been brought into domestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998, so violations of human rights law could be litigated in the domestic courts of the UK.

The ethics of non-therapeutic circumcision

The Journal of Medical Ethics (London) devoted its entire July 2013 issue to the question of non-therapeutic circumcision of children, where a variety of views are presented.[37]

General Medical Council

The General Medical Council (GMC) regulates medical practitioners in the United Kingdom.

The GMC issued an "interim guidance" on the [non-therapeutic] circumcision of male children in 1997.[38]

The guidance of the British Medical Association

The British Medical Association (BMA) is a medical trade association. It represents and protects the interests of its doctor-members. Unlike American medical trade associations, the BMA does not claim to be an authority on medical science. The BMA has provided several statements regarding child circumcision to inform its members since 1996:

The case of Re J (1999), Re S, and the Human Rights Act 1998 caused the BMA to revise its guidance to doctors and issued a new guidance in 2003.

Keele University law professors Fox & Thomson 2005 reviewed the 2003 BMA statement and cited legal deficiencies in that statement.[39] The BMA accepted the criticism, so the guidance was further revised in 2006.

The cases of Re R and B and Re L and B (CHILDREN) so alarmed the BMA's lawyers that a new guidance was issued in 2019. The new guidance advises extreme caution regarding performance of non-therapeutic circumcision of boys.

Symposia

The United Kingdom has been the site of several symposia regarding sexual integrity.

  • The Tenth International Symposium on Circumcision, Genital Integrity and Human Rights convened at the University of Keele, Keele, Newcastle, Staffordshire, England, United Kingdom on September 4-6, 2008.
  • The Fourteenth International Symposium on Genital Autonomy and Children's Rights convened at the University of Keele, Keele, Staffordshire, England, United Kingdom on September 14-16, 2016.

A source of information and aid

15 Square is a registered charity that provides information and aid to parents and both intact and circumcised males. The name refers to the approximate area of the male foreskin in square inches. 15 Square is based in Stone, Staffordshire.

Conclusion

The BMA (2019) reports that the NHS therapeutically circumcises about 10,000 boys under 18-years-of-age per year.[40]

The incidence of non-therapeutic circumcision of boys in the United Kingdom has been substantially reduced from its former peaks in the 1930s and early 1940s. Non-therapeutic circumcision of boys remains lawful provided that both parents grant consent. The practice seems to be concentrated among ethnic minorities. Ethical and human rights concerns about the surgery persist.

Non-therapeutic circumcision usually is not covered by the NHS, so parents must find a private medical or non-medical operator such as a mohel to perform the foreskin amputation and must pay the fee out of pocket. Given the recent cautions uttered by the BMA,[40] it may not be easy to find a medical practitioner willing to accept the risk.

References

  1. ↑ REFjournal Darby, Robert. Pathologizing Male Sexuality: Lallemand, Spermatorrhea, and the Rise of Circumcision. J Hist Med Allied Sci. July 2005; 60(3): 283-319. PMID. DOI. Retrieved 4 September 2021.
  2. ↑ REFbook Dixon, Edward H. (1845): A Treatise on Diseases of the Sexual Organs. New York: Stringer & Co. Pp. 158-165. Retrieved 9 June 2011.
  3. ↑ REFweb Zhang, Gary (2020). Jonathan Hutchinson, Life in the Fast Lane. Retrieved 4 September 2021.
  4. ↑ a b REFweb Darby, Robert. The crotchets of Sir Jonathan Hutchinson, The History of Circumcision. Retrieved 4 September 2021.
  5. ↑ REFjournal Hutchinson, Jonathan. On the Influence of Circumcision in Preventing Syphilis. Medical Times and Gazette. 1855; 32(844): 542-543. Retrieved 4 September 2021.
  6. ↑ REFjournal Heckford N. Circumcision as a remedial measure in certain cases of epilepsy and chorea. Clinical Lectures and Reports by the Medical and Surgical Staff of the London Hospital. 1865; 2: 58-64.
  7. ↑ REFjournal Hutchinson, Jonathan. A plea for circumcision. Archives of Surgery. 1890; II: 15. Retrieved 4 September 2021.
  8. ↑ REFjournal Hutchinson, Jonathan. On circumcision as a preventive of masturbation. Archives of Surgery. 1890; II: 267-9. Retrieved 4 September 2021.
  9. ↑ REFjournal Hutchinson, Jonathan. On circumcision. Archives of Surgery. 1893; IV: 379-80. Retrieved 4 August 2021.
  10. ↑ REFbook Treves, Frederick (1903): Chapter VI, in: Circumcision. Work: A Manual of Operative Surgery, II.. London: Cassell. Pp. 670-3. Retrieved 4 September 2021.
  11. ↑ REFjournal Hutchinson J. The advantages of circumcision. The Polyclinic. September 1900; 3(9): 129-131. Retrieved 4 September 2021.
  12. ↑ REFjournal Cockshut RW. Circumcision. BMJ. 19 October 1935; 2(3902): 764. Retrieved 4 September 2021.
  13. ↑ REFjournal Rickwood AMK, Kenny SE, Donald SC. Towards evidence based circumcision of English boys: survey of trends in practice. BMJ. 2000; 321: 792-3. PMID. PMC. DOI. Retrieved 5 September 2021.
  14. ↑ REFjournal Gairdner DMT. The fate of the foreskin: a study of circumcision. British Medical Journal. 1949; 2(4642): 1433-7. PMID. PMC. DOI. Retrieved 28 October 2019.
  15. ↑ REFweb (5 November 2018). Circumcision in men, National Health Service. Retrieved 5 September 2021.
  16. ↑ REFweb (20 November 2018). Circumcision in boys, National Health Service. Retrieved 5 September 2021.
  17. ↑ REFjournal Van Howe RS, Robson WM. The possible role of circumcision in newborn outbreaks of community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Clin Pediatr (Phila). May 2007; 46(4): 356-8. PMID. DOI. Retrieved 10 September 2021.
  18. ↑ REFjournal Anonymous. The case against circumcision. BMJ. 5 May 1979; 6172: 1163-64. PMID. PMC. Retrieved 5 September 2021.
  19. ↑ REFjournal Rickwood AMK, Hemalatha V, Batcup G, Spitz L. Phimosis in boys. Brit J Urol. April 1980; 52: 147-60. PMID. DOI. Retrieved 5 September 2021.
  20. ↑ a b REFjournal Rickwood AMK, walker, Jenny. Is phimosis overdiagnosed in boys and are too many circumcisions performed in consequence?. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. September 1989; 71(5): 275-7. PMID. PMC. Retrieved 5 September 2021.
  21. ↑ REFjournal Griffiths D, Frank JD. Inappropriate circumcision referrals by GPs. J R Soc Med. 1992; 85: 324-5. PMID. PMC. Retrieved 5 September 2021.
  22. ↑ REFjournal Gordon, Andrew, Collin, Jack. Save the normal foreskin. BMJ. 2 January 1993; 306(6869): 1-2. PMID. PMC. DOI. Retrieved 5 September 2021.
    Quote: A better understanding of the normal physiology, developmental anatomy, and pathology of the prepuce could prevent the removal of thousands of normal foreskins over the next 20 years.
  23. ↑ REFjournal Williams, Nigel, Chell, Julian, Kapila, Leela. Why are children referred for circumcision?. BMJ. 2 January 1993; 306(6859): 28. PMID. PMC. DOI. Retrieved 5 September 2021.
  24. ↑ REFjournal Denniston GC, Hill G. Gairdner was wrong.. Can Fam Physician. October 2010; 56(10): 986-7. PMID. PMC. Retrieved 5 September 2021.
  25. ↑ a b REFjournal Cathcart P, Nuttall M, van der Meulen J, Emberton M, Kenny SE. Trends in paediatric circumcision and its complications in England between 1997 and 2003. BJS. July 2006; 93(7): 885–890. PMID. DOI. Retrieved 5 September 2021.
  26. ↑ REFjournal Dave SS, Fenton KA, Mercer CH, Erens B, Wellings K, Johnson AM. Male circumcision in Britain: findings from a national probability sample survey.. Sex Trans Infect. December 2003; 79(6): 499-500. PMID. PMC. DOI. Retrieved 5 September 2021.
  27. ↑ REFdocument Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1985 3 All ER 402], Circumcision Reference Library. (1985). Retrieved 7 September 2021.
  28. ↑ REFbook Poulter, Sebastian (1986): English Criminal Law and Ethnic Minority Customs. London: Butterworths. Retrieved 7 September 2021.
  29. ↑ REFweb (23 April 2021). What is the Children Act?, Virtual College. Retrieved 7 September 2021.
    Quote: Under the Children Act 1989, ‘harm’ is defined as any “ill-treatment or the impairment of the health or development of the child”. Whether the harm is deemed ‘significant’ is decided by comparing the health and development of the child with what would generally be expected of another, similar child and judging if there is a big difference.
  30. ↑ REFdocument Price, Christopher P: Male Circumcision: A Legal Affront, Circumcision Reference Library. (December 1996). Retrieved 7 September 2021.
  31. ↑ REFweb (25 November 1999). Re J (child's religious upbringing and circumcision). Retrieved 7 September 2021.
  32. ↑ REFnews (26 November 1999)."Muslim father loses court battle", The Guardian. Retrieved 7 September 2021.
  33. ↑ REFbook Price, Christopher (1999): Male Non-therapeutic circumcision: The Legal and Ethical Issues. Work: Male and Female Circumcision, Medical, Legal, and Ethical Considerations in Pediatric Practice. Denniston GC, Hodges FM and Milos MF eds. (ed.). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Retrieved 7 September 2021.
  34. ↑ REFdocument Children's right to physical integrity PDF, Parliamentary Assembly. (1 October 2013). Retrieved 3 January 2021.
  35. ↑ a b REFweb Ratification Status for United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org, UN Treaty Body Database. Retrieved 12 September 2021.
  36. ↑ REFdocument A. v United Kingdom. [1998 2 FLR 959], Circumcision Reference Library. (1998). Retrieved 7 September 2021.
  37. ↑ REFjournal July 2013 issue. Journal of Medical Ethics. July 2013; 39(7) Retrieved 11 September 2021.
  38. ↑ REFweb Anonymous (1997). Guidance for Doctors Who Are Asked to Circumcise Male Children, Circumcision Reference Library, General Medical Council. Retrieved 12 September 2021.
    Quote: Listen to those with parental responsibility and give careful consideration to their views. You are not obliged to act on a request to circumcise a child, but you should explain if you are opposed to circumcision other than for therapeutic reasons. You should also tell those with parental responsibility that they have a right to see another doctor.
  39. ↑ REFjournal Fox M, Thomson M. A covenant with the status quo? Male circumcision and the new BMA guidance to doctors. J Med Ethics. 2005; 31(8): 463-9. PMID. PMC. DOI. Retrieved 11 September 2021.
  40. ↑ a b REFdocument Non-therapeutic male circumcision (NTMC) of children – practical guidance for doctors PDF, British Medical Association. (2019). Retrieved 10 September 2021.
Retrieved from "https://en.intactiwiki.org/w/index.php?title=United_Kingdom&oldid=20278"