Circumcision legal commentary

From IntactiWiki
Revision as of 01:28, 9 May 2020 by WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Construction Site

This article is work in progress and not yet part of the free encyclopedia IntactiWiki.

 

Circumcision legal commentary has been published for about the last fifty years in several nations by different authors who have a variety of views. The intent of this page is to collect such circumcision legal commentary in the English language as can be found online and link to it. Material will be arranged in approximate chronological order of publication.

Publications

T. L. Fisher (1966), an officer of the Canadian Medical Protective Association, discussed the legal dangers of using outmoded treatment. This is, of course, relevant to the outmoded practice of circumcision of male children.


Morse (1968) discussed ritual circumcision in hospitals under the law of New York.


Roddey (1971) discussed legal issues that can arise from the performance of then very common infant non-therapeutic circumcision.


Canadian medical ethicist Margaret Somerville (1980) published a commentary on the distinctions between therapeutic medical procedures and non-therapeutic medical procedures. Since the circumcision of male infants is a non-therapeutic procedure, her remarks are relevant here.


Margaret Somerville (1981) discusses the difference between therapeutic and non-therapeutic medical procedures.


American William E. Brigman (1985) used new medical evidence to argue that circumcision is child abuse, and discussed possible legal remedies. Recent medical articles have documented the actual injury of circumcision, to make it possible for an attorney to win damages for wrongful circumcision, he said. Brigman suggested civil rights class action suits against hospitals.


Sebastian Poulter (1986) argues that parents may authorise the non-therapeutic circumcision of a male minor under English law. Later British court decisions call his comments into question.


Bonner & Kinane (1989) discuss the legal and constitutional issues of non-therapeutic male circumcision under United States and California law.


Lynn E. Lebit (1992) discusses issues with the substituted judgment doctrine.


The Queensland Law Reform Commission (QLRC) (1993) considered possible reforms to the law of the state of Queensland, Australia, however no action has been taken after nearly 30 years.


James G. Dwyer (1994) discussed the impact of parents' religion on children's welfare.


Australian professor of law Neville Turner (1996) points out that circumcised boys may sue for damages.


David Richards (1996) argues that the best way to reduce the incidence of circumcision is to remove it from the medical benefits schedule.


Christopher Price, M.A. (Oxon) (1996) briefed the Law Commission of England and Wales on issues of male circumcision.


Jacqueline Smith (1998), of the Netherlands Institute of Human Rights, has examined non-therapeutic circumcision of male children in the light of international human rights law.

  •   Smith, Jacqueline (1998): Male Circumcision and the Rights of the Child. Work: To Baehr in Our Minds: Essays in Human Rights from the Heart of the Netherlands. Mielle Bulterman, Aart Hendriks and Jacqueline Smith (Eds.) (ed.). Edition: SIM-21. Utrecht: Netherlands Institute of Human Rights. Pp. 465-98. Retrieved 8 May 2020.


The late British solicitor Christopher P Price (1999) elucidated the difference between therapeutic and non-therapeutic procedures and discussed the state of British law relating to non-therapeutic circumcision of male children.

  •   Price, Christopher P (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: New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Pp. 425-54. Retrieved 8 May 2020.


Van Howe, Svoboda, Dywer, & Price (1999), a medico-legal team discuss the legal issues of non-therapeutic circumcision of boys.


Boyle, et al. (2000) argue strongly, that in common law jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and the United States, parents lack the capacity to consent to non-therapeutic circumcision, so it constitutes criminal assault, whenever it is performed.


Dr. Arif Bhimji {2000) argues that non-therapeutic circumcision of boys in Canada violates the rights protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


Suzannne Bouclin (2005) examined the legal status of non-therapeutic circumcision in Canada.


Professor Putzke (2008) points out that there is a criminal relevance of circumcising boys.


Professor Peter W. Adler, J. D., (2011) argues that it is unlawful for United States Medicaid to pay for non-therapeutic circumcision.


Professor Peter W. Adler, J.D., (2013) argues that non-therapeutic circumcision of boys is unlawful.