15,348
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→2019 revision of BMA guidance: Add text and citation.
|date=2019
|accessdate=2021-06-29
}}</ref>
Lempert et al. (2022) criticized the 2019 BMA guidance for "serious weaknesses". They listed:
# the absence of an explicit stance on the underlying ethical status of NPC, coupled with an implicit permissive stance,<br>
# an incoherent and impracticable analysis of the child’s best interests,<br>
# unbalanced guidance regarding cultural issues,<br>
# unbalanced guidance regarding scientific issues,<br>
# unjustified differential treatment of children of the same sex,<br>
# unjustified differential treatment of children of different sexes,<br>
# problems with child safeguarding, and (8) problems with regulation and training. <br>
# an unjustified presumption of lawfulness of NPC of minors and<br>
#) failure adequately to address recent case law.<ref name="lempert2022">{{REFjournal
|last=Lempert
|first=Antony
|init=A
|author-link=Antony Lempert
|last2=Chegwidden
|first2=James
|init2=J
|author2-link=James Chegwidden
|last3=Steinfeld
|first3=Rebecca
|init3=R
|author3-link=Rebecca Steinfeld
|last4=Earp
|first4=Brian D.
|init4=BD
|author4-link=Brian D. Earp
|etal=no
|title=Non-therapeutic penile circumcision of minors: Current controversies in UK law and medical ethics.
|journal=Clinical Ethics
|location=
|date=2022-05
|season=
|volume
|issue=
|article=
|page=
|pages=
|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360642209_Non-therapeutic_Penile_Circumcision_of_Minors_Current_Controversies_in_UK_Law_and_Medical_Ethics
|archived=
|quote=
|pubmedID=
|pubmedCID=
|DOI=
|accessdate=2022-05-20
}}</ref>