Hershel Goldman: Difference between revisions

Line 47:

}}</ref>

== Potential civil and criminal liability ==

[[Davis Richards]] (1996) quoted Marion's case, which said:

"[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:

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

@@ Line 47: / Line 47: @@
 }}</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