17,491
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→The guidance of the British Medical Association: Add text and citation.
* 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. Keele University 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]