Hershel Goldman: Difference between revisions

Line 55:

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

[[J. Neville Turner]], Professor of Law at Melbourne's [https://www.monash.edu/ Monash University] and president of [https://www.ozchild.org.au/ Oz Child], has argued that "circumcised boys may sue."<ref name="turner1996">{{REFjournal

|last=Turner

|init=N

@@ Line 55: / Line 55: @@
 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
+[[J. Neville Turner]], Professor of Law at Melbourne's [https://www.monash.edu/ Monash University] and president of [https://www.ozchild.org.au/ Oz Child], has argued that "circumcised boys may sue."<ref name="turner1996">{{REFjournal
   |last=Turner
   |init=N