16,719
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Revise BMJ section.
|format=
|quote=Under the Children Act 1989, ‘harm’ is defined as any “ill-treatment or the impairment of the health or development of the child”. Whether the harm is deemed ‘significant’ is decided by comparing the health and development of the child with what would generally be expected of another, similar child and judging if there is a big difference.
}}</ref>One perhaps unexpected effect of the Children Act 1989 was to bring circumcision cases into family court when parents disagreed about circumcision of a son.
The [https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/ Law Commission of England and Wales] had proposed to recommend that circumcision of male children be made lawful. The late [[Christopher P. Price]], solicitor, submitted a brief to the Law Commission in opposition to the proposal,<ref name="price1996">{{REFdocument
* 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. 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]
{{REF}}
[[Category:UK]]