Search

A UK doctor was recently acquitted of charges of reinstating a variety of female genital mutilation after delivering a child. In this paper, I contend that this incident reflects a broader confusion concerning the ethico-legal status of non-therapeutic genital surgeries for children and adults, which are not derivable from tenets of medical ethics, but rather violate them. I argue that medical professionals have an obligation to announce and address this confusion in order to motivate legislative reform, since the inconsistency of the current law entrenches the underlying sexism and ethnocentrism upon which its sense depends. Without convincing arguments for (a) condoning male circumcision and female cosmetic genital surgery and for (b) treating adult women of colour as lacking the capacity to consent, the current legislation stands in need of urgent revision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A recent Court decision in Cologne Germany concerning circumcision has resulted in a rapid response from the German Government. The German Parliament has passed new legislation confirming the lawfulness of ritual circumcision. However there are questions as to whether the German Parliament has done enough. This note looks at the background to the case in question and considers its ethical implications whilst also considering the analogous position in the UK. The author makes recommendations to change the current English law in this area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Law Commission will shortly begin discussions on reform of the law of non-fatal offences by issuing a scoping paper. This article starts with a review of recent improvements in the ways in which the Commission may get its Bills enacted. It then critiques the principal (to modern eyes) crimes of this kind found in the Offences against the Person Act 1861. Its focus lies on those offences and not the more policy-driven law, for example, on the transmission of HIV/AIDS, sado-masochism, male circumcision, and boxing (all of which are highly important). It concentrates on the Commission's previously expressed concerns that the statute's language is archaic and that the Act fails to provide a hierarchy (a 'ladder') of offences. It concludes with a redraft of the statute and a quote from Henry LJ in R v Lynsey that 'Bad laws cost money and clog up the courts with better things to do'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Allegations of poorly performed circumcisions may arise as negligence claims, civil claims or a professional (General Medical Council [GMC]) matter. This article explains the various types of circumcision, including those done for religious purposes, and attempts to provide an understanding of the issues relating to claims. The writer is a medicolegal expert (Accident & Emergency Consultant) who trained in surgery and for over 25 years has performed neonatal circumcision for religious purposes (usually in the home), child circumcision and adult circumcision. He has provided reports for both claimant and defendants, in negligence claims, civil claims and GMC proceedings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On two occasions the Court of Appeal in England has addressed the legality of non-therapeutic circumcision performed on a minor unable to provide consent. Both cases involved disputes in post-separation families where one parent sought a male child's circumcision against the wishes of the other parent. In January 2008 the Supreme Court of Oregon was faced with a similar factual situation in the case of Boldt v Boldt. However, the boy at the centre of the dispute in Boldt was significantly older than in the English cases. The Supreme Court therefore concluded that the testimony of the boy himself, who is now 13, was required and remanded the case for a re-hearing in order that the trial court could specifically address his wishes with regard to circumcision. In this paper we offer a critique of the Oregon Court's somewhat elliptical reasoning in the Boldt case. We argue that cases involving male circumcision of older children raise important ethico-legal issues, which the Boldt judgements gloss over, and which English courts have yet to confront in the context of circumcision. Consequently, our aim in this paper is to use Boldt as a lens through which to explore and inform UK practice. We argue that this case fits into a characteristic pattern according to which judges, law makers and professional bodies shy away from confronting key ethico-legal questions raised by the tolerance in Anglo-American society of non-therapeutic genital cutting of male infants. In raising explicitly for the first time the position of older minors, the factual situation in Boldt affords us an opportunity to begin to address the limits of parents' rights to determine the future religious identity of their children. In seeking to analyse how Boldt and the questions to which it gives rise might inform UK law we focus on three issues. The first is the right of the boy at the centre of the dispute to determine which medical treatments or interventions to his body are permissible. The father's subsequent petitions for reconsideration and for certiorari mean that when the boy's testimony is finally heard by a court it is likely that he will be 14 or 15 years of age. We aim to assess how a UK court might respond if faced with the task of determining whether a minor could choose circumcision for himself in such a scenario. A subsidiary question here is the extent to which circumcision procedures are appropriately categorised as 'medical treatment'. Finally we offer some more tentative thoughts on what limits may legitimately be placed on parental rights to make choices for their children when their choices are motivated by religious belief. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]