EMLA: Difference between revisions

Line 189:

=== Legal consequences ===

The [[German Circumcision Act]] of 2012 implemented a so-called [[Mohel]] clause in paragraph 2, which states that up to the end of the sixth month of life, a boy can also be circumcised by a non-medical practitioner, as long as he is "trained" for this form of genital mutilation. The [[Circumcision Debate]] of that time impressively proves that Jewish [[Mohel]]s and other Jewish advocates of [[circumcision]] for boys repeatedly referred to the EMLA ointment as an adequate pain treatment.

The [[German Circumcision Act]] of 2012 implemented a so-called [[Mohel]] clause in paragraph 2, which states that up to the end of the sixth month of life, a boy can also be [[circumcised]] by a non-medical practitioner, as long as he is "trained" for this form of genital mutilation. The [[Circumcision Debate]] of that time impressively proves that Jewish [[Mohel]]s and other Jewish advocates of [[circumcision]] for boys repeatedly referred to the EMLA ointment as an adequate pain treatment.

The clear definition now available, that EMLA ointment may not be used at all in this case, leads at least paragraph 2 of the [[German Circumcision Act]] ad absurdum. It should be even easier for the German Federal Constitutional Court, once it has to decide on the constitutionality of [[§ 1631d BGB]], to put an end to this "fault of the rule of law".<ref>{{REFnews

@@ Line 189: / Line 189: @@
 === Legal consequences ===
-The [[German Circumcision Act]] of 2012 implemented a so-called [[Mohel]] clause in paragraph 2, which states that up to the end of the sixth month of life, a boy can also be circumcised by a non-medical practitioner, as long as he is "trained" for this form of genital mutilation. The [[Circumcision Debate]] of that time impressively proves that Jewish [[Mohel]]s and other Jewish advocates of [[circumcision]] for boys repeatedly referred to the EMLA ointment as an adequate pain treatment.
+The [[German Circumcision Act]] of 2012 implemented a so-called [[Mohel]] clause in paragraph 2, which states that up to the end of the sixth month of life, a boy can also be [[circumcised]] by a non-medical practitioner, as long as he is "trained" for this form of genital mutilation. The [[Circumcision Debate]] of that time impressively proves that Jewish [[Mohel]]s and other Jewish advocates of [[circumcision]] for boys repeatedly referred to the EMLA ointment as an adequate pain treatment.
 The clear definition now available, that EMLA ointment may not be used at all in this case, leads at least paragraph 2 of the [[German Circumcision Act]] ad absurdum. It should be even easier for the German Federal Constitutional Court, once it has to decide on the constitutionality of [[§ 1631d BGB]], to put an end to this "fault of the rule of law".<ref>{{REFnews