17,052
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Potential civil and criminal liability: Wikify.
Ritual male circumcision is non-therapeutic and is not warranted or justified by medical evidence. This form of mutilation should not be legally distinguished from female circumcision which is a form of female genital mutilation presently in the process of being prohibited throughout Australia and the Western world. As ritual male circumcision is non-therapeutic, may be against public policy, and clearly is not in the best interests of the child, a parent's consent may be vitiated, leaving persons involved in the procedure liable in negligence, notwithstanding parental religious beliefs. Alternatively, if a medical practitioner fails to give the parent reasonable information on the risks of and alternatives to ritual circumcision, the practitioner may also be liable in negligence.<ref>David Richards. [https://www.cirp.org/library/legal/richards/ Male Circumcision: Medical or Ritual?] 3 J Law Medicine 371 (1996).</ref>
</blockquote>
[[J. Neville Turner]], Professor of Law at Melbourne's [https://www.monash.edu/ Monash University ] and president of [https://www.ozchild.org.au/ Oz Child], has argued that "circumcised boys may sue."<ref name="turner1996">{{REFjournal
|last=Turner
|init=N