Difference between revisions of "British Medical Association"
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) (Create page.) |
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) (Add circumcision guidance section and text and REF section.) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The '''British Medical Association''' (BMA) is a trade union for British medical doctors. The BMA's headquarters are at BMA House, Tavistock Square, Bloomsbury, London WC1H 9JP. | The '''British Medical Association''' (BMA) is a trade union for British medical doctors. The BMA's headquarters are at BMA House, Tavistock Square, Bloomsbury, London WC1H 9JP. | ||
| − | The BMA publishes | + | The BMA publishes an important general medical journal, the British Medical Journal, now renamed ''[https://www.bmj.com The BMJ]''. |
| + | |||
| + | ==Circumcision guidance for physicians== | ||
| + | The BMA has published guidance to its physician members regarding the performance of child circumcision since 1996. The guidance has been revised several times as laws have changed. The guidance does not include medical information, but does give ethical and legal guidance to the physician-members. The guidance has become more and more cautious with each revision. | ||
| + | |||
| + | * 1996 [http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/bma/ Circumcision of Male Infants: Guidance for Doctors] | ||
| + | |||
| + | The case of ''Re J (1999)'', ''Re S'', and the ''Human Rights Act 1998'' caused the BMA to revise its guidance to doctors and issued a new guidance in 2003. | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{UNI|Keele University|KU}} law professors Fox & Thomson 2005 reviewed the 2003 BMA statement and cited legal deficiencies in that statement.<ref>{{REFjournal | ||
| + | |last=Fox | ||
| + | |first=Marie | ||
| + | |init=M | ||
| + | |author-link= | ||
| + | |last2=Thomson | ||
| + | |init2=M | ||
| + | |author2-link= | ||
| + | |etal=no | ||
| + | |title=A covenant with the status quo? Male circumcision and the new BMA guidance to doctors | ||
| + | |journal=J Med Ethics | ||
| + | |location= | ||
| + | |date=2005 | ||
| + | |volume=31 | ||
| + | |issue=8 | ||
| + | |pages=463-9 | ||
| + | |url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1734197/pdf/v031p00463.pdf | ||
| + | |archived= | ||
| + | |quote= | ||
| + | |pubmedID=16076971 | ||
| + | |pubmedCID=1734197 | ||
| + | |DOI=10.1136/jme.2004.009340 | ||
| + | |accessdate=2021-09-11 | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | </ref> The BMA accepted the criticism, so the guidance was further revised in 2006. | ||
| + | |||
| + | * 2003 (with changes in 2006 indicated) [http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/bma2003/ The law & ethics of male circumcision - guidance for doctors] | ||
| + | |||
| + | The cases of ''[[Re B and G (children) (No 2) EWFC 3| Re R and B]]'' and ''[[Re L and B (CHILDREN)| Re L and B (CHILDREN)]]'' so alarmed the BMA's lawyers that a new guidance was issued in 2019. The new guidance advises extreme caution regarding performance of non-therapeutic circumcision of boys. | ||
| + | |||
| + | * 2019 [https://www.bma.org.uk/media/1847/bma-non-therapeutic-male-circumcision-of-children-guidance-2019.pdf Non-therapeutic male circumcision (NTMC) of children – practical guidance for doctors] | ||
| + | |||
| + | The 2019 BMA guidance regarding non-therapeutic circumcision of boys is divided into twelve “cards”. Card Four discusses law. Human rights law is recognised but the BMA fail to understand the significance of human rights law. The BMA do not clearly state that human rights law grants rights to children which helps to define the best interests of the child and should be respected and protected. | ||
{{LINKS}} | {{LINKS}} | ||
* {{URLwebsite|https://www.bma.org.uk/|2021-12-14}} | * {{URLwebsite|https://www.bma.org.uk/|2021-12-14}} | ||
| + | {{REF}} | ||
| + | |||
[[Category:UK]] | [[Category:UK]] | ||
[[Category:Physicians]] | [[Category:Physicians]] | ||
Revision as of 14:52, 14 December 2021
The British Medical Association (BMA) is a trade union for British medical doctors. The BMA's headquarters are at BMA House, Tavistock Square, Bloomsbury, London WC1H 9JP.
The BMA publishes an important general medical journal, the British Medical Journal, now renamed The BMJ.
Circumcision guidance for physicians
The BMA has published guidance to its physician members regarding the performance of child circumcision since 1996. The guidance has been revised several times as laws have changed. The guidance does not include medical information, but does give ethical and legal guidance to the physician-members. The guidance has become more and more cautious with each revision.
The case of Re J (1999), Re S, and the Human Rights Act 1998 caused the BMA to revise its guidance to doctors and issued a new guidance in 2003.
Keele University law professors Fox & Thomson 2005 reviewed the 2003 BMA statement and cited legal deficiencies in that statement.[1] The BMA accepted the criticism, so the guidance was further revised in 2006.
- 2003 (with changes in 2006 indicated) The law & ethics of male circumcision - guidance for doctors
The cases of Re R and B and Re L and B (CHILDREN) so alarmed the BMA's lawyers that a new guidance was issued in 2019. The new guidance advises extreme caution regarding performance of non-therapeutic circumcision of boys.
The 2019 BMA guidance regarding non-therapeutic circumcision of boys is divided into twelve “cards”. Card Four discusses law. Human rights law is recognised but the BMA fail to understand the significance of human rights law. The BMA do not clearly state that human rights law grants rights to children which helps to define the best interests of the child and should be respected and protected.
External links
Official website. Retrieved 14 December 2021.
References
- ↑
Fox M, Thomson M. A covenant with the status quo? Male circumcision and the new BMA guidance to doctors. J Med Ethics. 2005; 31(8): 463-9. PMID. PMC. DOI. Retrieved 11 September 2021.
