22,335
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
wikify
The court did not think that the father's desire to cut off part of his son's [[penis]] was grounds for a change of custody, however the court granted the injunction against the proposed circumcision. Lia Boldt then filed an appeal of the circuit court's decision with the [https://www.courts.oregon.gov/courts/appellate/coa/Pages/default.aspx Oregon Court of Appeals] (OCA).<ref name="svoboda2010" /> The OCA rejected Lia Boldt's appeal.
She then appealed to the [https://www.courts.oregon.gov/courts/appellate/supreme/Pages/default.aspx Oregon Supreme Court] (OSC) in 2007. It was at this point that [[Doctors Opposing Circumcision]] entered the case. Doctors Opposing Circumcision realized that the OSC needed information about circumcision and about the child's rights under Constitutional and international [[human rights ]] law, so it filed an ''amicus curaie'' brief to help the Court understand why it should accept the case. The brief stated in part:
<blockquote>
Mikhail (Misha/Jimmy) James Boldt, (hereinafter ‘Misha/Jimmy’) is a minor who is legally incompetent. Nevertheless, Misha/Jimmy is a person with rights of his own. As a minor he deserves special protection under Oregon, and international law. Misha/Jimmy has an unalienable right to protection and security of his person, and the Courts of the State of Oregon have a corresponding obligation to protect his rights independent from and even despite the wishes of a parent who might endanger the child unnecessarily.<ref name="docbrief1">{{REFdocument
}}</ref>
Thus ended in victory a five-year legal battle to save a boy's [[foreskin]]. The boy's legal, constitutional, and [[human rights ]] prevailed over the father's claimed religious right to excise a [[Foreskin#Physiological_functions| functional body part]] from his son's body. The father's supporters, the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America were also on the losing side.
[[Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)]] filed two ''amicus curiae'' briefs in this case and was successful in protecting the boy's [[foreskin]] from [[circumcision]].<ref name="docbrief1" /><ref name="docbrief2" />
Geisheker notes that the Court mentioned only the child’s right to be heard, but did not recognize its paramount duty to protect him. Misha’s case is a sad commentary upon American life and constitutional principles. ''Boldt v. Boldt'' eloquently demonstrates that in the US, at least, the law to date has not been able to effectively grapple with such a heavily contextual and cultural practice as male circumcision.
To date, with one known exception, all awards and settlements have occurred in cases involving either a “botched” procedure or a lack of informed consent. At least three times, courts have avoided squarely addressing the legality of male circumcision by diverting the discussion into such peripheral, procedural issues as standing. Judicial views of standing are politically and culturally shaped in response to social mandates. Although MGC is currently illegal under existing laws and [[human rights ]] treaties, if properly and objectively interpreted free of cultural bias, American cultural blindness has prevented recognition of this. Elsewhere in the world, Tasmania’s Law Review Commission recently released a lengthy issues paper questioning the legality of male circumcision. Sweden has regulated circumcision and the practice was recently made illegal in South Africa, with religious and medical exceptions included that threaten to swallow the rule. While the practice is not otherwise explicitly prohibited anywhere in the world, it is of course illegal worldwide under a broad range of prohibitions imposed by statute, common or civil law, [[human rights ]] treaties, and customary law.<ref name="svoboda2010" />
</blockquote>