22,197
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
|archived=
|trans-title=
|language=
|archived=
|quote=
|pubmedID=
|pubmedCID=
|DOI=
|archived=
|quote=
|pubmedID=
|pubmedCID=
|archived=
|quote=
|pubmedID=
|pubmedCID=
|archived=
|quote=
|pubmedID=
|pubmedCID=
|DOI=
wikify HIV
}}</ref> Munby may have read the Brief to the Law Commission of England and Wales by the late [[Christopher P. Price]] entitled ''Male Circumcision: A Legal Affront'',<ref name="price1996">{{REFweb
|url=http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/price-uklc/
|title=Male Circumcision: A Legal Affront
|last=Price
|first=Christopher
[60] It can readily be seen that although FGM of WHO Types I, II and III are all very much more invasive than male circumcision, at least some forms of Type IV, for example, pricking, piercing and incising, are on any view much less invasive than male circumcision.
[61] It is also important to recognise that comparatively few male circumcisions are performed for therapeutic reasons. Many are performed for religious reasons (as in Judaism and Islam). However, large numbers of circumcisions are performed for reasons which, as the particular prevalence of the practice in, for example, the English-speaking world and non-Muslim Africa suggests, are as much to do with social, societal, cultural, customary or conventional reasons as with anything else, and this notwithstanding the justifications sometimes put forward, that circumcision of the male is hygienic or has prophylactic benefits, for example, the belief that it reduces the incidence of penile cancer in the male, the incidence of cervical cancer in female partners and the incidence of [[HIV ]] transmission.
[62] Now there is a very simple but important point to all this. There is nothing in the case-law to suggest that male circumcision is, of itself, such as to justify care proceedings: see ''Re J'' (Specific Issue Orders: Muslim Upbringing and Circumcision) [1999] 2 FLR 678, on appeal ''Re J (Specific Issue Orders: Child’s Religious Upbringing and Circumcision)'' [2000] 1 FLR 571, and ''Re S (Specific Issue Order: Religion: Circumcision)'' [2004] EWHC 1282 (Fam), [2005] 1 FLR 236. On the contrary, judges in the Family Division have on occasions made orders providing for non-therapeutic circumcision: see, for example, ''Re S (Change of Names: Cultural Factors)'' [2001] 2 FLR 1005, 1015-1016 ''(T v S (Wardship)'' [2011] EWHC 1608 (Fam), [2012] 1 FLR 230, was a case of a medically indicated circumcision). As against that, and as Mr Hayes helpfully points out, there are voices in the Academy who take a different view: see, for example, Christopher Price, Male Circumcision: An ethical and legal affront, Bulletin of Medical Ethics (May) 1997; 128, 13-19, and Brian D Earp, Female genital mutilation (FGM) and male circumcision: Should there be a separate ethical discourse, Practical Ethics (2014).
|pages=13-19
|url=http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/price/
|accessdate=2020-09-12
}}
|pages=
|url=https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/47841915/Female_genital_mutilation_separate_discourse__.pdf?1470503991=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DFemale_genital_mutilation_FGM_and_male_c.pdf&Expires=1599929412&Signature=DQO-jn-h2aOYW5x5PCRsqR9hdoysDCwunXYj1CamCoAPXD0WCsNcQcV0vbNjNIYxI47ubDrVLOSQh7B1Kwu4-BtxrMbSQPLkZ3t5sgxMh1E7sdyMVKeR4yqNj2hp4-DNqTVs90R2SL5EYU8xCtPER0hLNPJxXWNxzGeVpZ2Fmqz2sGPrSH7k18e87el3bfICenCqFX5KbVTWojr~A-r0xidj0j~Sf-PD7sfBKG-3m6KOkIWKJCZihjElxM9SVqPK9r4H876ZEn9HlK9on1stkG18YBkXwOcJD6dHs8bxNbTpeNjLq~OX8-51vpbvKeyKn3VmeqMtrpv0RoQTXiZnww__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA
|DOI=10.13140/2.1.3530.4967
|accessdate=2020-09-12
|pages=
|url=https://www.academia.edu/32675773/Reason_and_paradox_in_medical_and_family_law_shaping_childrens_bodies?auto=download&email_work_card=download-paper
|DOI=10.1093/medlaw/fwx027
|accessdate=2020-11-30
|pages=501-31
|url=http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/122232/3/Fox_Thomson_Bod_Int_revised%206March17.pdf
|accessdate=2020-09-09
}}