17,110
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Copy text from deletionpedia.org
[[File:Doctors-opposing-circumcision-logo.jpg|300px|right|Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.) - official logo]]
The organization '''Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.) - Physicians for Genital Integrity''' supports the [[WWDOGA]]. D.O.C. has members in 50 States, 12 Canadian Provinces and Territories, and in nations on six continents. DOC is headquartered in Seattle, Washington, United States. DOC combines expertise in medicine with expertise in law. Contributions to DOC are tax-deductible charitable contributions. DOC is a member of [https://archive.crin.org/| Child Rights Information Network]. DOC claims members on six continents.
They are an international network of physicians dedicated to protecting the genital integrity and eventual autonomy of all children, serving both health professionals and the public through education, support, and advocacy.<ref>{{REFweb
* [[Gabriel Symonds]], Advisor
* [[John W. Travis]], Advisor
==History==
DOC was founded by University of Washington Medical School Professor George C. Denniston, MD, MPH, in 1995 to support genital integrity for children and to discourage the surgical genital modification for cultural practices.
==Governance==
Doctors Opposing Circumcision is governed by a board of directors. As of 2019, Denniston served as chairman of the board and president and John V. Geisheker, J.D., served as executive director.
==Litigation==
DOC intervened in the Oregon case of ''Boldt v. Boldt'', which technically was a child custody case, but actually about parental power to circumcise at will, by filing two ''amicus curiae'' educational briefs to help the court. As a result of DOC's intervention, the Oregon Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to determine the child's wishes regarding circumcision.<ref>[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/Publications/S054714.htm| Boldt v. Boldt]. 176 P.3d 388 (SC Oregon 2008).</ref> DOC's intervention was cited by the court in its written opinion. The trial court determined that the child did not want to be circumcised and custody was changed from the father to the mother. This landmark case received critical comment in the medical ethics literature.
{{LINKS}}