On this page

• Introduction
• Male and female circumcision in Australia: Legal and ethical issues
• Australian Medical Association: Code of ethics
• Case study: Forced circumcision of Australian boys: Special report from Bundaberg
  • Report in News-Mail (Bundaberg) Friday, 9 August 2002
    
  • Article in News-Mail (Bundaberg) 10 August
    
  • Article in Sunday Mail (Brisbane), 11 August
    
  • Media release by Circumcision Information Australia
• United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
• An important British legal case on ritual (Islamic) circumcision
• The truth about Islamic circumcision practices
• Norwegian doctors criticise ritual circumcision and urge its abolition
• Child protection agencies in Finland call circumcision of boys unethical
• Danish medical authorities question legality of circumcision
• Kenyan newspaper condemns forced circumcision
• United States law
• Circumcision of males without consent a human rights violation: Submission from Attorneys for the Rights of the Child
• Links to further information

Introduction

Around the world approximately 13 million males and 2 million females are circumcised annually. Most people in Western societies appear unaware that male and female circumcision have similar cultural origins and that a number of societies still maintain both of these practices. Although most countries permit male circumcision only, many societies which perform female circumcision require both men and women to be circumcised. This is the case in many African and Arab nations, including Egypt, Sudan, Somalia and Eritrea. These communities practice male and female circumcision as a result of Islamic or tribal beliefs, where both men and women can be seen as unfit for marriage and be discharged from the community or even killed if they do not undergo circumcision.

History of male and female circumcision in English-speaking countries

The main reason why forcible circumcision of male minors is not generally seen as a serious assault in Australia is because of the long history of routine male circumcision in English-speaking countries.

Male and female circumcision was adopted and practised by physicians in Britain and the USA during the 19th century to treat infantile phimosis (a tight or non-retractable foreskin, then misunderstood as an abnormality), provide protection against syphilis and an ever-growing list of incurable diseases, and to discourage masturbation in childhood and adolescence. Doctors believed that masturbation was responsible for a range of illnesses, including, tuberculosis, epilepsy, bed-wetting, night terrors, precocious sexual unrest and even homosexuality. Some doctors also treated epilepsy, hysteria and masturbation in girls and women by clitoridectomy.

Many articles were published in the British and US medical journals from the mid-1850s to describe the miraculous benefits of circumcision for both males and females. Britain abolished the practice of female circumcision in the 1860s, when doctors decided that even if the procedure had benefits for mental and physical health, it was unethical to amputate part of a woman's sexual organs without her express and informed consent. Sadly, boys were not given the same ethical consideration as girls, and they were increasingly subject to genital surgery as the 19th century drew to a close. These events established the current double standard on male and female circumcision.

Britain's leading champion of routine infant circumcision was (Sir) Jonathan Hutchinson, who published a series of articles in the 1890s urging universal male circumcision as a preventive of masturbation, syphilis and cancer of the penis. In the USA Dr J.H. Kellogg identified a list of 39 signs by which masturbators could be detected and prescribed a set of remedies, including bandaging and caging the genitals; tying the hands to prevent touching; sewing up the foreskin with silver wire to prevent erection, and finally circumcision, which was to be performed "without administering an anaesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment."

For further information, see review of David Gollaher, Circumcision: A history

Male and female circumcision in Australia: legal and ethical issues

Female circumcision (the removal of any part of the female genitals) is legally prohibited, and is in fact a criminal offence, in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory. It is a practice rejected and abhorred by people all over Australia. Despite this, widespread circumcision of male infants and boys arouses few protests and continues to be unregulated. In 1993 the Queensland Law Reform Commission concluded in their research paper, Circumcision of Male Infants:

"On a strict interpretation of the assault provisions of the Queensland Criminal Code, routine circumcision of a male infant could be regarded as a criminal act. Further, consent by parents to the procedure being performed may be invalid in light of the common law's restrictions on the ability of parents to consent to the non-therapeutic treatment of children."

The full text of the report is available

For further information on the legal position of male and female circumcision in Australia is available at
http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/Australia/

In a recent article in the Australian Journal of Law and Medicine Christine Mason criticised the double standard by which the circumcision of girls and women is prohibited or discouraged while the circumcision of male infants and boys is permitted with little regulation and even advocated. She points out that the World Health Organisation used to employ the term female circumcision but introduced the expression female genital mutilation (FGM) at a conference in Ethiopia in 1990, supposedly because it carried "heavier moral weight" - though it may be suspected that another reason was to demarcate it from male circumcision, which the WHO did not propose to combat. (Ethiopians practise both male and female genital mutilation.)

Mason has a useful discussion of the different procedures which may be covered by the term FGM. She also points out that, in contrast to the way in which the adverse impact of male circumcision is usually underestimated and trivialised, most people overestimate and exaggerate the harm done by female circumcision. Although it is very damaging to sexual function and often carries additional adverse side-effects, it is not true that circumcised women necessarily become incapable of sexual sensation or pleasure, and it seems that many are still capable of orgasm.

The article emphasises that consent is the central concept in all surgical treatments, since "all medical treatment is preceded by the patient's choice to undergo it"; without consent, even the least touching amounts to the tort of battery. Legal cases have established that the rights of parents to impose medical procedures on children decline as the children get older, and further that children (even if intellectually disabled) have the right to provide informed consent to treatment. If a procedure is not medically required, a ruling of the High Court (Marion's case, 1992) ] has established that approval must be granted by the Family Court.

In relation to male circumcision, Mason points out: "Since a child cannot be consulted and the process is painful and unnecessary at birth, such decisions should only be made by an adult male. As with adult female surgery, an adult male in full possession of his senses should be able voluntarily to elect to be circumcised".

She quotes another legal authority, who states: "It is illogical that male circumcision has not been considered with the [female genital mutilation] prohibition. Surgical cutting and disfiguring of a healthy genital organ is consistent with male and female circumcision. … [Since] the differences appear to be based largely on socially constructed ideals, and not on facts, it is suggested there should be no distinction based purely on gender".

David Richards, "Male circumcision: Medical or ritual?", Journal of Law and Medicine, Vol. 3, 1996, p. 372

Mason concludes that tolerance of male circumcision makes it much harder to eliminate and actually encourages female circumcision, and she quotes one activist as stating: "Female circumcision will never stop so long as male circumcision is going on. How do you expect to convince an African father to leave his daughter uncircumcised as long as you let him do it to his son?" It is hypocritical and counter-productive for the USA to urge African and Islamic cultures to eliminate female circumcision while American doctors continue to enforce the mass circumcision of male babies.

She concludes: "Changes are required to educate against both male and female infant genital surgery whilst also amending the existing legislation in order to permit adult consent to such procedures. This both protects children and allows freedom of minority practices when a person is old enough to voluntarily and freely decide for himself or herself. In the long term, it may even lead to the eradication of the practice altogether."

Christine Mason, "Exorcising excision: Medico-legal issues arising from male and female genital surgery in Australia", Journal of Law and Medicine, Vol. 9, 2001, pp. 58-67.

Further information

Gregory Boyle, J.S. Svoboda and Christopher Price, "Circumcision of healthy boys: Criminal assault?", Journal of Law and Medicine, Vol. 7, 2000, pp. 301-10.

Further articles on medical ethics and law at

http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/
http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/
http://www.nocirc.org/legal
http://www.circumstitions.com/Law-cont.html

Personal freedom The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient arrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. … The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mid, the individual is sovereign. — John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

Australian Medical Association
Code of Ethics

The new Code of Ethics recently adopted by the Australian Medical Association has a number of provisions which are relevant to circumcision of minors.

The DOCTOR and the PATIENT

1.1 Patient Care

· Consider first the well-being of your patient.
· Treat your patient with compassion and respect.
· Approach health care as a collaboration between doctor and patient.

2. PROFESSIONAL INDEPENDENCE

(d) Recognise your right to refuse to carry out services which you consider to be professionally unethical, against your moral convictions, imposed on you for either administrative reasons or for financial gain or which you consider are not in the best interest of the patient.

4. The DOCTOR and SOCIETY

(g) Regardless of society's attitudes, ensure that you do not countenance, condone or participate in the practice of torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman, or degrading procedures, whatever the offence of which the victim of such procedures is suspected, accused or convicted.

The full Code of Ethics is available here

Note that these principles refer to the relationship between the doctor and the patient, and that the AMA recognises that the primary responsibility of the doctor is to the patient. The patient is the person receiving medical treatment, not the person or organisation paying for it. There is nothing in these rules which would justify a doctor amputating a normal foreskin from an infant or child merely because another person with the money to pay for the operation asked to have it done.

CASE STUDY
Forced circumcision in Queensland: Middle Eastern father subjects Australian boys to Islamic rite

A shameful incident in Bundaberg, Queensland, in 2002 highlights the need for better protection of boys against unwanted interference with their genitals. In this case a Moslem father forced circumcision on his two sons, aged five and nine, against their own wishes, against the wishes of their mother, and in breach of a specific order by the Family Court. The father was separated from his former partner (an Australian woman of indigenous origin), who had sole custody of the boys, but who allowed them to visit him on the understanding that the man's sister would ensure that they were not harmed. He took advantage of this generosity during one stay to race the boys off to a doctor and have their foreskins amputated. Although the case was investigated by the Queensland Police child abuse unit, which sought to prosecute the man for assault, the case was dismissed in the Bundaberg magistrate's court on legal technicalities.

The case shows up the shameful state of medical ethics in Queensland. How was it possible to find a doctor to perform this unnecessary and harmful surgery on two normal boys merely because an adult preferred them to be like him? And not an adult with any legal rights over the boys: had the surgeon done his homework, he would have discovered that the father did not have custody of he boys, and that the Family Court had specifically ordered that they were not to be circumcised. That it was possible is partly a tribute to the destructive influence of circumcision advocates like Professor Brian Morris at Sydney University and the maverick Queensland GP Dr Terry Russell. They are forever popping up in the media to urge parents to have their sons circumcised. Russell's own medical practice consists almost entirely of severing the foreskins from baby boys by means of the plastibell device. No medical organization in the world recommends circumcision, and in Australia both the Australian College of Paediatrics and the Australian Medical Association have issued strong statements against the practice. [ Link to "Doctors say" page on this site ]

How effective is Queensland and Australia law in protecting the bodily integrity of children? In several European countries, including Sweden and Norway, the written permission of both parents is necessary before a doctor can legally perform a circumcision on boys. A simple rule like that in Australia that could have prevented this tragedy. The case also shows up the sexist and discriminatory double standard by which female circumcision is condemned with horror as female genital mutilation while male circumcision is tolerated as a trivial or even beneficial adjustment. Yet Amnesty International defines genital mutilation as the removal of any part of the genital organs. By this definition, these boys are victims of genital mutilation.

If these boys had been girls there would be universal outrage and demands for education programs and legal reform to prevent such cases in the future. Why the sexist double standard? Do boys not have the same right to a complete set of genitals as girls? The father's right to practise his religion and culture does not extend to the right to inflict injury or disfiguring bodily alterations on other people, especially if they are defenceless children.

In this special report we print a number of items relating to this tragic and disturbing case. Because new charges may still be laid against the man, it is not possible to reveal his name or that of his ex-partner and the boys.

Report in News-Mail (Bundaberg) Friday, 9 August 2002.

Dad escapes charges
By Tanya Moore

A MAN who had his two young sons circumcised without their mother's permission had charges of grievous bodily harm against him dismissed yesterday. The Bundaberg father, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, had his case dismissed when the prosecution revealed they were not ready to proceed. Bundaberg Magistrates Court was told the man had taken the boys to a Bundaberg hospital while their mother was on holidays to have the operation performed on the six- and nine-year-old boys.

Defence barrister Tim Ryan said the doctor had no problems with the "routine operation" because both the boys and the father had given their consent. The court was told the father was "sincere in his religious beliefs" that the boys should be circumcised. But the court was also told the mother, who is separated from the man, disagreed with the procedure and had been involved in a Family Law Court matter, which was the centre of the prosecution's case. Prosecutor Senior Constable Wayne Puxty explained to the court that the prosecution was unable to go ahead without the certified Family Law Court documents that were supposed to be supplied by the mother, and requested an adjournment to receive them.

But Mr Ryan said the request was "simply outrageous" given the case had been set down for a hearing since May and the documents wanted by the prosecution had been in existence since August 2000. He added his client had not seen his two sons since the charges were laid on October 3 last year as part of his bail conditions and said any further delaying of the case would be a "misuse of the criminal justice system".

Acting Magistrate Neil Lavaring rejected the application for an adjournment, which forced Snr Const Puxty to offer no evidence against the father. Outside court, arresting officer Detective Senior Constable Peter Cormack, from the Gold Coast child abuse investigation unit, said police would still be pursuing the case, on which charges could still be laid.

Article in News-Mail (Bundaberg) 10 August

Cutting anger
By Tanya Moore

DOUBLE standards allowed two boys to be circumcised without their mother's permission, an outraged Australian health group said yesterday. Circumcision Information Australia spokesman Shane Peterson said the case in which a six- and nine-year-old boy were circumcised by their Bundaberg father, despite their mother's opposition, was "a tragedy".

"In European countries the written permission of both parents is necessary before a doctor can legally perform a circumcision on boys", Mr Peterson said. "This rule should be implemented in Australia to prevent such tragedies." Mr Peterson said the case illustrated a double standard whereby female circumcision was condemned as mutilation while male circumcision was viewed as trivial or even a beneficial adjustment. He said the case also highlighted the lack of implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child by Australian law.

The mother of the boys is also angry at what she sees as a double standard on circumcision. "If I had been in this current situation with two daughters who were circumcised by their Muslim father, the Australian public would be outraged," said the woman, who cannot be identified for legal reasons. "Because it is my two sons who have been harmed, few people seem to care." She said her estranged husband had performed the operation during an access visit to the children last year.

Grievous bodily harm and unlawful wounding charges were laid against the boys' father, but these were dropped on Thursday when the prosecution revealed they were not ready to proceed with their case. Detective Senior Constable Peter Cormack, from the Gold Coast child abuse investigation unit, said police would still pursue the case, on which charges could still be laid.

Article in Sunday Mail (Brisbane), 11 August

Mother's fury as boys circumcised
ELISSA LAWRENCE
11th August 2002

A MOTHER has spoken of her anguish at discovering her two young sons were circumcised without her knowledge.

The woman, 27, who cannot be identified, said she was devastated to learn her former partner and father of her sons had arranged for the boys, then aged nine and five, to be circumcised at a Bundaberg hospital last October for religious reasons.

The man appeared in Bundaberg Magistrates Court on Thursday facing charges of grievous bodily harm (for the circumcision). The court was told the Muslim man had taken his sons to hospital to have the operations performed while their mother was on holidays and was "sincere in his religious beliefs" that they should be circumcised.

The court was also told the mother objected to the procedure and was involved in a Family Law Court matter central to the prosecution's case. But the charges were dropped when the prosecution revealed missing Family Law Court paperwork meant it was not ready to proceed with the case.

An adjournment request was denied, forcing the police prosecutor to offer no evidence against the man.

Outside court, arresting officer Detective Senior Constable Peter Cormack from the Gold Coast child abuse investigation unit said police would pursue the case and that charges could still be laid.

The boys' mother, who now lives on the Gold Coast, said in a statement she believed her sons had been assaulted. "My sons have a right to grow into adult men with intact bodies and choose their own religious and other beliefs", she said.

"If I had been in this situation with two daughters who were circumcised ... the Australian public would be outraged. Being of indigenous Australian descent, I understand the importance of freedom of personal beliefs in a multicultural society."

Circumcision Information Australia spokesman Shane Peterson said
circumcision was a form of mutilation.

"For a long time Australia has had a double standard on male and female circumcision", he said. "Female circumcision is illegal yet male circumcision continues to be unregulated. It's morally wrong. An adult is surgically inflicting their religious, cosmetic or sexual preferences on a child.

"Surgery of any kind is one of the most invasive and high-risk forms of medical intervention possible, and it should always be the last resort. In European countries, the permission of both parents is necessary before a doctor can legally perform a circumcision on boys."

Media release by Circumcision Information Australia

Charges dropped for father who forced circumcision on sons

A committal hearing for charges of grievous bodily harm and unlawful wounding was scheduled in Bundaberg yesterday against a father who forced his two sons to undergo circumcision during an access visit to his family home last year. The father, of Muslim faith, arranged for his sons aged 5 and 9 to be circumcised for non-medical reasons. This was against the expressed wishes of their mother.

"Being of indigenous Australian descent I understand the importance of freedom of personal beliefs in a multicultural society", she said. "I believe my sons have a right to grow into adult men with intact bodies and choose their own religious and other beliefs; I am devastated that the father has stolen that opportunity away from my boys."

The charges were dropped yesterday as documents from 1998 needed as evidence for the case could not be located. Prosecutor Senior Constable Wayne Puxty explained to the court that the prosecution could not proceed without certified Family Law Court documents that were supposed to be supplied by the mother, and requested an adjournment to receive them.

But defence barrister Tim Ryan said the request was "simply outrageous" given the case had been scheduled for a hearing since May and claimed the documents wanted by the prosecution had been in existence since August 2000. He added his client had not seen his two sons since the charges were laid on October 3 last year as part of his bail conditions and said any further delaying of the case would be a "misuse of the criminal justice system".

Acting Magistrate Neil Lavaring rejected the application for an adjournment, which forced Snr Const. Puxty to offer no evidence against the father. Outside court, arresting officer Detective Senior Constable Peter Cormack, from the Gold Coast child abuse investigation unit, said police would still be pursuing the case, and charges could still be laid.

By arranging circumcision of the boys, the father was in breach of orders by the Family Court, Brisbane. After a long documented history of physical abuse by the father to the mother, the Family Court ruled that the boys would reside with their mother, and she would have the day to day care and control of their welfare and development.

Despite the Court's rulings and the issue of protection orders, on a number of occasions the father threatened to abduct the children, force them to undergo circumcision, and accompany him to Turkey. The father tried to fulfil the first part of his threats by applying to the family court for the boys to be circumcised. The mother of the boys said that the man had a history of substance abuse and psychiatric illness, and that the Family Court "justly dismissed his application for my boys to be forcibly circumcised."

The mother feared for her family's safety and moved from Bundaberg to an anonymous address in the Gold Coast to escape the father's continued threats and harassment. For her boys' well-being, she preferred that they have no contact with their father. "I only allowed my boys to stay with their father during the recent access visit as his sister agreed she would be responsible for their care and well-being", she said.

It seems the mother's trust was misplaced, as the boys' aunt did not prevent the circumcision that went ahead. The mother believes this was due to the family's Muslim faith.

"The father always used his Muslim religion as an excuse for his violence", she said. "He treated us as though we were less than human; he saw us as objects or property for him to do with as he pleased. And now he has assaulted and mutilated my two boys in the worst possible way, by cutting off part of their sexual organs and depriving them of future sexual pleasure".

The boys are reluctant to speak of their experience, but have expressed that their father misled them to believe they were going to the doctor for an examination. They are very upset that part of their bodies was removed and do not want any contact with their father. Despite the obvious trauma and breach of court orders, the father's barrister argued that the circumcision should be treated as a moral rather than a criminal issue. This has outraged the mother, who is adamant that her sons have been assaulted.

"If I had been in this current situation with two daughters who were circumcised by their Muslim father, the Australian public would be outraged. Because it is my two sons who have been harmed, few people seem to care".

A spokesman for Circumcision Information Australia, Mr Shane Peterson, said that the case highlighted the lack of implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child by Australian law. "In several European countries the written permission of both parents is necessary before a doctor can legally perform a circumcision on boys. This rule should be implemented in Australia to prevent such tragedies."

Mr Peterson also said that the case illustrated the double standard by which female circumcision is condemned as mutilation, yet male circumcision is viewed as a trivial or even beneficial adjustment. "Amnesty International defines genital mutilation as the removal of any part of the genital organs. By this definition, these boys are victims of genital mutilation."

Further comments on multiculturalism

Stricter rules governing consent for non-therapeutic circumcision could have prevented this sad and all too common occurrence. A high proportion of marriages in Australia are between men and women of different ethnic/cultural backgrounds, and the children of such unions cannot be said to belong strictly to one or the other group; this is all the more true in the many cases where marriages end in separation while the children are still young.

Children in such situations will eventually decide which (if any) of the parental cultures they wish to identify with, or whether they wish to choose a cultural identity of their own, and we recognize their right to make a free choice. In a multicultural society, freedom of religion means that each individual must have the freedom to adopt his or her own religion and not have it imposed on them. In order to ensure that this right is real, their bodies should be protected from tell-tale and irreversible alterations. Although these children may choose to identify with the culture of one or other of their parents, they are not only members of that culture; they are also Australian citizens who are entitled to the protection of Australian law and custom. Individual determination has a physical as well as a mental dimension. Multiculturalism was intended as a policy to make people from non-English speaking backgrounds feel more at home in Australia; it was never meant as a carte blanche for the retention of customs that Australian society finds abhorrent.

In the United Kingdom and Sweden the judicial systems have intervened in instances where Moslem fathers have sought or arranged for the circumcision of boys without maternal consent. In two cases the fathers were convicted, and in one of these cases the father was gaoled for three months. The practitioner who performed the circumcision was also charged with an offence, though acquitted, by the National Board of Health and Welfare.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and other international treaties which protect the physical and moral integrity of individuals are available at http://www.arclaw.org

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

Sections of the convention which protect children against circumcision are as follows.

Article 14

Article 14 (1) gives the child freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This means that he or she is entitled to choose his or her own religion, and that parents do not have the right to impose their own religion, or the rites and customs of that religion, on their children.

Article 14 (1). States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

Article 19

Article 19 (1) protects children violence, injury and abuse: violence or injury occurring in a doctor's surgery is not excluded.

Article 19 (1). States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.

Article 24

Article 24 (3) requires signatories to work towards abolishing "traditional practices" harmful to children's well being. These are not spelt out explicitly, but the reference is unmistakably to practices like circumcision, which could not be named out of deference to the many member countries of the UN which practise male or female circumcision or both. This article requires the Australian government to take active steps to discourage and eradicate male and female circumcision; it has taken effective action against female circumcision, but nothing so far towards abolishing male circumcision.

Article 24 (3). States Parties shall take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children.

Article 37

Article 37 (a) protects children from cruel or degrading treatment: what could be more cruel or humiliating for a nine or a six-year old boy than to have the most interesting part of his penis cut off?

Article 37. States Parties shall ensure that: (a) No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

The full text of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

An important British legal case on ritual (Islamic) circumcision
In re J (1999)

J was a five-year old boy living in England, born of a mixed marriage. J's father is a Turkish Moslem, his mother is British. The father wanted him brought up as a Moslem and circumcised. The mother did not, and she took the father to court to prevent that from happening. In a landmark decision she won on both issues. Here are some significant quotes from the judgement of Wall J, delivered in England on 6 May 1999.

What the judge said

Where there was disagreement between those who had parental responsibility for the child, including a local authority exercising parental responsibility under a care order, circumcision was not to be carried out without the leave of the court.

The question of the father taking J to Turkey on holiday is, however, linked with the question of his circumcision. If I decide that J should not be circumcised, the question arises as to whether or not the father's family and/or a Turkish court would accept that decision and feel themselves bound by it. The father assured me in evidence that he would respect the English court's decision, however much he might disagree with it, and would not seek to have J circumcised in Turkey. The father also recognised that if J returned from Turkey circumcised that would constitute a clear contempt of the English court. It is, therefore, clear to me that in Islamic law, J is to be regarded as a Muslim.

[On circumcision in Islam] According to Dr Hinchcliffe, circumcision is not mentioned in the text of the Koran, but in the Sunna (the practice of the Prophet Mohammed), which is the second recognised source of law, it is strongly recommended, and sayings from the Prophet himself are cited in support of the practice.

J is plainly not in a position to give an informed consent to his circumcision.

There is also ... a body of medical opinion which regards both male and female circumcision as invasive procedures involving unnecessary mutilation of the genitals, and which calls for male circumcision to be criminalised, except in the rare cases where it is medically called for.

A case can be made for describing ritual male circumcision without any medical need for it as an assault on the bodily integrity of the child; indeed, that is the case which is made in much of the medical literature to which I was referred.

If J were to be circumcised this could be carried out as a day case. J would be likely to be unconscious for about 20 to 30 minutes. It would be a painful procedure.

The medical benefits arising from circumcision (apart from the three conditions identified by Dr S for which surgery is indicated) are highly contentious. There is a powerful body of medical opinion which puts strongly in issue any suggestion that male circumcision prevents or reduces the risk of urinary tract infection, penile cancer, or sexually transmitted disease. Equally contentious is the suggestion that it reduces the incidence of cervical cancer in women.

There is evidence that tissue loss during circumcision removes or destroys the function of tissue which plays an important part in the overall sensory mechanism of the penis, and that there is a consequential loss of sexual sensory pleasure during sexual intercourse.

Dr S's view, as a paediatrician, was that circumcision should only be carried out if medically indicated.

I should add, in parenthesis, that amongst the documents shown to me was material from an organisation called Norm UK, the aims of which are to provide education about (1) the need to avoid circumcision and (inter alia) (2) about foreskin restoration. Within this material was an article on foreskin restoration which indicates that it is possible, although restoration cannot give back the erotogenic nerves amputated at circumcision. Equally, there was nothing in the medical evidence I read and heard which indicated that J could not be circumcised as an adult.

The father simply could not understand the objections to circumcision. It was a means of demonstrating and reinforcing J's relationship with him: they had to be the same.

The procedure for a child of J's age carries small but identifiable physical and psychological risks. It is an invasive procedure, which therefore carries with it risks shared by all surgical interventions: pain, bleeding, infection, surgical mishap and complications of anaesthesia.

The father did not accept the risks, either physical or psychological, outlined in the medical evidence by Dr S; and I have to say that, despite his obvious sincerity, there was an element of exaggeration in the father's account of his own circumcision (no doubt as a result of the passage of time), and in my judgment he minimises its painful aspects and underestimates the likely effect of the procedure on J.

In my judgment, the strained relationship between the parents, and the fact that as a circumcised child J would be unlike most of his peers, increases the risk that J will suffer adverse psychological effects from being circumcised. The disadvantages are that despite the father's passionate defence of the procedure, J may be traumatised by it. Thus, contrary to the father's perception, circumcision may in fact weaken rather than strengthen his relationship with J.

Circumcision carries with it the small but definite risks of both physical and psychological harm to which I have referred. Furthermore J, as a circumcised child, would undoubtedly be different from the majority of his peer group. The consequential possibility that he may be picked on or teased by his peers cannot be excluded as a risk.

I think that, because of his strong feelings and the passage of time, the father minimises the pain and discomfort likely to be suffered by J if the operation is performed. Circumcision is an effectively irreversible surgical intervention which has no medical basis in J's case. It is likely to be painful and carries with it small but definable physical and psychological risks.

Under art 9 [of the Human Rights Act 1999], the father says that his right to manifest his religion in practice includes the right to arrange for the circumcision of his son in accordance with the tenets of his religion. That seems to me plainly correct. It follows that any limitations on that freedom imposed by a court must be (1) as are prescribed by law; and (2) as are necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others - in this case, the rights and freedoms of both the mother and J himself. … I therefore see nothing inconsistent with the proper operation of arts 8 and 9 of the Convention in a decision of the court which, on the particular facts of this case and in the exercise of a judicial discretion, refuses to make a specific issue order permitting J's circumcision, alternatively prohibits the father from causing J to be circumcised. … Equally, given the balance which the court has to strike between the competing rights of the mother, the father, and the child, it does not seem to me that an order prohibiting circumcision in the circumstances of this case could properly be described as discriminatory under art 14.

In my judgment, the argument put forward by the Official Solicitor on this point is sound. Circumcision is an irrevocable step in a child's life. Changes of surname, which require applications to the court in cases of disagreement are reversible: circumcision is not. In my judgment, therefore, where there is a dispute between parents or other persons having parental responsibility for a child over the child's circumcision, that dispute should be referred to the court.

For all these reasons, there will be no order on the father's application for J to be brought up as a Muslim and there will be a prohibited steps order preventing the father from arranging or permitting J to be circumcised without the leave of the High Court. I propose to invite counsel to agree the precise terms of the order.

Order accordingly. Leave to appeal granted.

Re J (child's religious upbringing and circumcision)
FAMILY DIVISION, Judge WALL J.
2, 3, 4 MARCH, 6 MAY 1999

The full text of the judgement

The truth about Islamic circumcision practices

Although the father in the Bundaberg case, and his barrister, tried to excuse his actions by reference to the Moslem religion, Islam does not impose an obligation on parents to circumcise their children. Furthermore, its recommendations about circumcision apply to women as much as men. The Koran, the Moslem bible, makes no mention of circumcision at all, but the prophet Mohammed is reported to have stated that "Circumcision is a sunnah for the men and a makrumah for the women". (Note the reference to men and women: nothing about boys and girls.) The term sunnah means customary or traditional; the term makrumah means meritorious. The most you could conclude is that circumcision was customary for men and meritorious for women, and thus desirable for both but obligatory for neither.

In these respects Islam is quite different from Judaism, which requires the head of the household not only to circumcise his baby sons at eight days, but also his male servants and employees, which makes no mention of women in this context, and in which the rule of circumcision is stated prominently in the first book of the Jewish bible.

Mohammed further laid down five rules for Moslem men: shaving the pubic hair; circumcision; trimming the moustache; plucking the hairs from the armpits; and clipping the nails. These constitute the fitrah, or laws of personal deportment, to which a pious man in pursuit of perfection must conform. According to Sami Aldeeb, "They are not compulsory, but simply advisable". The vital point about this list is that circumcision is a recommendation for adult men, perhaps no more important than trimming their moustache or shaving their pubic hair. It is thus less obligatory than the rule of prayer five times a day, the pilgrimage to Mecca, fasting at Ramadan or abstention from alcohol and pork. There is certainly nothing in the fitrah which requires a father to circumcise his children.

Before assuring the Bundaberg magistrate's court that the man in this case was "sincere in his religious beliefs", his barrister should have established that he scrupulously observed all these requirements, not just the observance that his sons, rather than he himself, had to pay for.

There is no unanimity among Islamic theologians as to whether Mohammed himself was circumcised and how it happened. Some say that he was born without a foreskin, others that he was circumcised by an angel or his grandfather.

It is thus obvious that, whatever traditions may have evolved in particular cultures over the centuries, Islam does not require parents to have their boys and girls circumcised; and that parents who do have them circumcised cannot appeal to rules of their religion as a justification for this assault. Some Moslems even question whether circumcision itself is necessary and suggest it was merely a custom taken over unthinkingly from desert Arabs when Islam arose in the seventh century. The Egyptian Dr Nawal El-Saadawi writes:

"If religion comes from God, how can it order man to cut off an organ created by Him as long as that organ is not diseased or deformed? God doe not create the organs of the body haphazardly without a plan. It is not possible that He should have created the clitoris in woman's body only in order that it be cut off at an early stage in life."

As a woman and a victim of circumcision herself, she was referring to the female genitals, but the point is equally applicable to the male foreskin - the part of the penis removed by circumcision.

References

Sami A. Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh, "Jehovah, his cousin Allah and sexual mutilations", in George C. Denniston and Marilyn Milos (eds), Sexual mutilations: A human tragedy, New York, Plenum Press, 1997

Dr Sami Aldeeb, "To mutilate in the name of Allah or Jehovah: The legitimation of male and female circumcision"
Medicine and Law, Vol 13, No 7-8, 1994, pp. 575-622

Also available at

http://www.quran.org/circumcision.htm
http://www.fgmnetwork.org/samialdeeb/

Dr Aldeeb's home page

Sami A. Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh, Male and female circumcision among Jews, Christians and Muslims: Religious, medical, social and legal debate, Warren PA, Shangri-La Publications (Marco Polo Monographs, No. 5), 2001

The marsh Arabs: Report by an English traveller

When he was travelling through the marshy region of the lower Euphrates River in the 1930s (present-day Iraq), the British traveller Wilfred Thesiger encountered many Arab people who did not practice circumcision, and others who did and suffered nasty injuries and infections as a result of the operation. His report makes a mockery of the ill-informed statement by the Australian College of Pediatrics (1996) that circumcision "probably originated as a hygiene measure in communities living in hot and dry environments". On the contrary: cutting flesh in primitive conditions was about the least hygienic thing anybody could do, carrying a high risk of bleeding, infection and permanent disability or death, as Thesiger found.

Thesiger writes:

Circumcision, although nowhere mentioned in the Koran, is generally regarded as obligatory for Moslems following the example of the prophet Mohammed himself, who was circumcised in accordance with Arab custom. No uncircumcised person may lawfully make the pilgrimage to Mecca. Among the tribes in southern Iraq … the operation was often deferred until manhood … and was seldom performed before puberty. It was done by specialists who travelled round from village to village in the summer. Their traditional fee was a cock [!], but more often they charged five shillings. The examples of their work which I saw were terrifying. They used a dirty razor, a piece of string and no antiseptics. Having finished, they sprinkled the wound with a special powder, made from the dried foreskins of their previous victims, and then bound it up with a tight rag. People living under these conditions acquire a remarkable resistance to infection, but they could not resist this, and boys sometimes took two months to recover, suffering great pain in the meanwhile. One young man came to me for treatment ten days after his circumcision, and although I am fairly inured to unpleasant sights and smells, the stench made me retch. His entire penis, his scrotum and the inside of his thighs were a suppurating mess from which the skin was sloughing away, the pus trickling down his legs. I cured him eventually with antibiotics. In spite of the social stigma of being uncircumcised, some boys not unnaturally refused. In other cases the fathers would not allow their sons to be operated on because there was no one else to look after the buffaloes. A few maintained that they had been circumcised by an angel at birth, a superstition that is also current in Egypt. Later I visited villages … where I heard that hardly anyone was circumcised.

Wilfred Thesiger, The marsh Arabs, London 1964, pp. 101-2

Further information on Islamic circumcision

Dr Sami Aldeeb, To mutilate in the name of Allah or Jehovah: The legitimation of male and female circumcision

Also available at
http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/aldeeb1/
http://www.fgmnetwork.org/samialdeeb/

A site maintained by Moslems who oppose circumcision

A Moslem site explaining why women should be circumcised and listing the hygienic and medical benefits

A semi-pornographic and sexual fetish site, favouring circumcision, whether elective or compelled

Photos

http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org
http://josh.bakehorn.net/circ.html
http://www.infocirc.org/fourn.htm

Norwegian doctors criticise ritual circumcision and urge its abolition

The following article by Pal Gulbrandsen appeared in Tidsskrift for den Norske laegeforening [Norway], Volume 121, Number 25: Page 2994, [Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association, Volume 121 Number 25: Page 2994.]

Ritual circumcision of boys

The Council for Medical Ethics states that ritual circumcision of boys is not consistent with important principles of medical ethics, that it is without medical value, and should not be paid for with public funds.

The council has sent a statement to the board of the Norwegian Medical Association on this matter. Among other things, the council says that ritual circumcision of boys has no established medical benefit. Even with the use of local anaesthesia, the procedure causes pain and is associated with certain risks of medical complications. The Council for Medical Ethics states that circumcision of boys is not consistent with important principles of medical ethics laid down as general determinations in Paragraph 1 ( 1) of the Norwegian Code of Ethics for Doctors. These require doctors to uphold human health, and to cure, relieve and comfort. The council points out that it is an important factor that the child cannot give consent.

According to the council, doctors should be allowed to refuse to perform ritual circumcision as a matter of conscience. The council makes a point of noting that, when performed, even if not for medical reasons, that circumcision is a surgical operation that must be carried out according to correct principles of surgery and with proper anaesthesia. In line with the Code of Ethics for Doctors 12, it should not be paid for by the public health service.

The council invited relevant religious leaders in our community to work on replacing circumcision with symbolic rituals that do not involve a surgical procedure.

Cite as: Gulbrandsen P. Rituell omskjæring av gutter. [Ritual circumcision of boys.] Tidsskr Nor Lægeforen [Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association] 2001;121(25):2994.
Source: http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/gulbrandsen1/

Child protection agencies in Finland call circumcision of boys unethical

Central Union for Child Welfare
Helsinki, Finland

Male circumcision
30 September 2003
Submission to the Task Force convened by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health to inquire into the regulation of male circumcision.

The Central Union for Child Welfare in Finland opposes the circumcision of boys except when necessary to treat a disease. Circumcision violates a boy's sexual integrity and alters his body, having physical and behavioural effects. Female circumcision is rightly viewed as inhumane sexual mutilation and is punished as an assault. Boys are guaranteed the same legal protection.

The Central Union for Child Welfare considers that the bodily integrity of minors should not be violated by circumcision except when medically necessary to treat a disease. The actions of society should be based on unconditional respect for the physical integrity of minors.

That is why the Central Union for Child Welfare considers that no one has the right to consent to this invasive operation on a child's behalf, except in relation to treatment of a disease. The Central Union for Child Welfare believes children have a right to special protection. The Child Custody and Right of Access Act prohibits the subjection of children to exploitation and humiliating treatment.

The Constitution guarantees physical integrity. The Constitution's preparatory work explicitly establishes that religious freedom does not extend to violating the integrity of another person. Thus a child should be treated as an individual who is completely protected from birth until the age of majority. Deliberately causing pain and injury is defined in the Penal Code as maltreatment and is subject to prosecution. The Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by Finland, demands that states parties undertake to abolish traditions harmful to children.

The Council of Europe Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, to which Finland is a signatory and which Finland is preparing to ratify, prohibits giving consent to an intervention on behalf of an incapable person, unless it is for the direct benefit of that person.

The position of the Central Union for Child Welfare is that boyhood circumcision should not be permitted. The Union hopes that the task force of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health will discuss methods to bring about cultural changes that protect children's physical integrity and lead to an end to circumcision.

Circumcision should be permitted only on individuals who are of age, regardless of whether they are male or female, and only after determining they have consented freely, without coercion.

Heikki Sariola

Original document in Finnish: Poikien ympärileikkaus
Translated by Dennis Harrison
Source: http://www.courtchallenge.com/news/lskl1.html

Danish medical authorities question legality of circumcision

Articles in Danish magazine Politiken compare male circumcision to female genital mutilation and call for a ban on circumcision of boys. They should have the same protection from unnecessary genital alterations as girls.

Article by Uffe Hastrup, 20 November 2002

Article by Lau Sander Esbensen

The Chairman of Danish Council of Medical Ethics has called for ban on circumcision of boys before the age of consent; he states that "no adult is entitled to carry out irreversible surgery on a child, unless it is for health reasons"; and that "prior to eighteen years of age, Danish children have a right to be protected from ritual interventions which can cause pain or permanent damage".

Full text of article translated here.

Kenyan newspaper condemns forced circumcision

The Nation (Nairobi)
Editorial 7 August 2002
"Punish these hooligans"

A sad story out of Kitale last weekend was about a man who bled to death after being forcibly circumcised. Yes, it is circumcision season in parts of Western Province, and it is a period where those who have not undergone the ritual are at risk of being subjected to it against their will.

Samuel Simiyu was 26 and married with an 18-month-old child. Fellow touts at the Kitale bus stage, nevertheless, decided that he was not man enough. They ended up killing him instead. They must be made to face the full force of the law. The authorities often tend to turn a blind eye to such acts of violence as forced circumcision. But, whether or not they lead to death, it must be made very clear that every person has a right to decide whether or not to undergo customary rituals.

Those who so ardently believe in circumcision have absolutely no right to force another person into circumcision against his will. This applies irrespective of whether the person comes from a community that practises circumcision or not. Forced circumcision might seem a minor, rather quaint, issue. But it is an issue that goes to the very core of our rights and obligations as Kenyans. The Constitution has an equivalent of a Bill of Rights. Chapter 5 underlines protection of fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual. These include the right to life, liberty, security and protection of the law; the right to freedom of conscience, expression, assembly and association and the right to privacy.

The Constitution also protects the individual from being subjected to torture or to any cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. It protects the person from being subjected to forced circumcision. The penal code further sets out the punishment to be meted out to any person who subjects another to such treatment. In the Kitale case, we are not talking merely about a random act of violence, but a well-planned conspiracy that ultimately, intended or not, led to an individual's death. The authorities must act appropriately.

http://allafrica.com/stories/200208070126.html

United States law

The position in the United States of America is similar to Australia: girls are protected by law from cosmetic alteration of their genitals, while boys are ignored. Under the US code, Title 18, Section 116 "whoever knowingly circumcises, excises or infibulates the whole or any part of the labia majora or minora or clitoris of another person who has not attained the age of 18 years shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both".

In this law no exception is made for religion or culture: "No account shall be taken of the effect on the person on whom the operation is to be performed of any belief on the part of that person, or any other person, that the operation is required as a matter of custom or ritual".

In a recent article on Fox News, Wendy McElroy quotes these sections of the law and suggests that it is contrary to anti-discriminatory and equal opportunity or treatment principles to protect only girls. She goes back to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), which declares that these include "the rights to security of person, to freedom from torture and other cruel and unusual treatment, and to privacy". It is only recently that people have started to realise that thee principles apply to children as much as to adults.

In her study "Female circumcision and the equal protection clause", Shea Lita Bond concludes:

"Both male and female circumcision are medically unnecessary procedures that can cause children to experience physical and psychological harm. State legislatures enacted FGM statutes to protect female minors from circumcision complications, but never extended the same protection to male children. This comment does not suggest that female circumcision is less important than male circumcision or that it is not a serous, human rights problem. However, here in the United States male minors face circumcision on a wider scale, yet they are not legally protected from this painful, medically unnecessary procedure. Law criminalizing female circumcision are a step in the right direction toward protecting child welfare. However all children are at risk of being circumcised and yet currently only half are protected under these laws.

"State laws violate the constitutional guarantee that similarly situated males and females be treated equally before the law. Notwithstanding a state government's good intentions, and its legal prerogative to protect young girls from an injurious procedure, the state court must extend the same legal protections to boys at risk for a similar procedure. Striking down unconstitutional FGM statutes and replacing them with gender neutral, generally applicable laws will protect all children from harm and further the state's legitimate interest in protecting child welfare without discriminating on the basis of gender."

Shea Lita Bond, "Female circumcision and the equal protection clause", John Marshall Law Review (Chicago), Vol. 32 ,1999, pp. 353-80

Circumcision of males without consent a human rights violation

United Nations experts have acknowledged that at least under certain circumstances male circumcision constitutes a human rights violation. [1, 2] The average male circumcision removes at least half of the skin of the penis and also does significant other damage. [3] In March 2003, the British Medical Association (BMA), through its Committee on Medical Ethics, reaffirmed its findings from 1996 [4], stating that "to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate.. there is rarely a clinical indication for circumcision." [5] In fact, all fifteen of the international and national medical associations which have addressed the issue have uniformly declared that neonatal circumcision is not justified as a routine therapeutic procedure. [6]

The British Human Rights Act 1998 confers on all UK residents, including all UK children, the rights applicable under the European Convention on Human Rights [7] including, inter alia, the rights to security of the person and to freedom from "torture or. inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." [8] The right to freedom from torture or from inhuman and degrading treatment is an absolute right that is unqualified and not subject to exceptions. [9] The Children's Act 1989 mandates that paramount consideration be given to the welfare of the child and the child's wishes. [10] Circumcision is no longer lawful in the United Kingdom. [11] The legal status quo, whereby circumcisions are not punished either criminally or civilly as long as they are done "competently" and with "consent" of the parents, must be unstable.

A number of human rights documents - whether ratified or applicable under principles of customary international law - forbid routine infant male circumcision based on such important principles as the rights of the child, the right to freedom of religion, and the right to the highest attainable standard of health. These include the United Nations Charter, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, now ratified by all but two of the world's nations. [12] Each of these documents has been ratified by the United Kingdom. [13]

Males may not be discriminated against in the application of human rights principles.

Article 13 of the United Nations Charter, as well as Article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 2 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child bar discrimination on the basis of sex.

Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides, "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law." Ms. Gay J. McDougall, as the Sub-Commission's Special Rapporteur on Systematic Rape, Sexual Slavery and Slavery-like Practices During Armed Conflict, stated: That international humanitarian law, insofar as it provides protection against rape and other sexual assaults, is applicable to men as well as women is beyond any doubt as the international human right not to be discriminated against (in this case on the basis of sex) does not allow derogation. [14]

The right of freedom of religion does not justify and conflicts with male circumcision. Children bear their own right to freedom of religion, independent of the wishes of their parents or guardians. Under Article 14.1 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, children have the right to demand that states parties respect their right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. No infant is capable of consenting to a surgical procedure based on his own religion. Where the procedure is one based on religion, it is therefore the parent's religion which motivates the procedure and not the religion of the person whose genitals are being surgically altered. A parent's consent is therefore again clearly insufficient. [15]

Precisely due to the necessity of preserving freedom of religion, governments must prevent ritual male circumcision and, for that matter, ritual female genital mutilation. A ritual mutilation permanently takes away the person's right to his bodily integrity and his right to choose whether to permit the alteration of his body under the precepts of a particular religion.

The Family Court heard a case regarding male circumcision in 1999, ruling in a decision that was later upheld by the Court of Appeal that therapeutic circumcision is lawful if a medical indication is present and one parent consents but that non-therapeutic circumcision would require the consent of both parents in accordance with their shared religious values. It ruled that in the absence of consent by both parents, non-therapeutic circumcision requires a court order and the court first must find that the proposed non-therapeutic circumcision would be in the best interest of the child. [16]

Parental consent is invalid except under certain limited circumstances not met by routine infant circumcision. [17] The General Medical Council has cautioned:

"Where a patient's capacity to consent is in doubt, or where differences of opinion about his or her best interests cannot be resolved satisfactorily, you should consult more experienced colleagues and, where appropriate, seek legal advice on whether it is necessary to apply to the court for a ruling. You should seek the court's approval where a patient lacks capacity to consent to a medical intervention which is non-therapeutic or controversial." [18] Since the patients here are newborns, they clearly cannot consent to circumcision. Therefore, under this guideline application to the court is required.

Finally, it should be borne in mind that the recently issued BMA guidance, like an earlier version issued in 1996, [19] again specifically mentions the right to refuse to circumcise on conscientious objector grounds. [20]

References

[1] Attorneys for the Rights of the Child. Report of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights on its fifty-third session - written statement submitted by the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers (NOCIRC), a non-governmental organization on the Roster - male circumcision; 9 August 2001. Available at http://www.arclaw.org/UN/WrittenArg.html

[2] United Nations Security Council. Commission of Experts' Final Report [on the Former Yugoslavia] (S/1994/674, part IV, section F).

[3] Taylor JR, Lockwood AP and Taylor AJ. The Prepuce: Specialized Mucosa of the Penis and its Loss to Circumcision. British Journal of Urology 1996;77:291-295.

[4] British Medical Association. "Circumcision of Male Infants: Guidance for Doctors." London: British Medical Association, 1996.

[5] British Medical Association. "The law and ethics of male circumcision: Guidance for Doctors." London: British Medical Association, 2003. Available at: http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/bma2003/

[6] See http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/

[7] Council of Europe. [European] Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. ETS No. 005. Entered into force 3 September 1953. Available at: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/CadreListeTraites.htm

[8] The Human Rights Act 1998. London: HMSO 1998. Available at: http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/80042--a.htm

[9] Edge PW. "Male circumcision after the Human Rights Act 1998." Journal of Civil Liberties 2000; 5(3):320-337. Available at: http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/edge1/

[10] The Children Act 1989. London: HMSO 1989.

[11] Van Howe RS, Svoboda JS, Dwyer JG, Price CP. Involuntary circumcision: the legal issues. BJU Int 1999;83(suppl 1):63-73. Available at: http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/vanhowe5/

[12] Boyle GJ, Svoboda JS, Price CP, Turner JN. Circumcision of healthy boys: criminal assault? J Law & Med 2000;7:301-310. Available at: http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/boyle1/

[13] The United Nations. The United Nations and Human Rights, 1945-1995. New York: United Nations Department of Public Information, 1995, p. 504.

[14]. Contemporary forms of slavery: systematic rape, sexual slavery and slavery-like practices during armed conflict: final report submitted by Ms. Gay J. McDougall, Special Rapporteur (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/13, para. 24).

[15]. Svoboda JS, Van Howe RS, Dwyer JG. Informed consent for neonatal circumcision: an ethical and legal conundrum. J Contemp Health Law Policy 2000;17(1): 60-134. Available at: http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/conundrum/

[16] Re J (Specific issue orders: Muslim upbringing and circumcision) [1999] 2 FLR 678. The Court of Appeal squarely endorsed Wall J's analysis in Re J (child's religious upbringing and circumcision) [2000] 1 FCR 307.

[17] Svoboda JS, Van Howe RS, Dwyer JG. Informed consent for neonatal circumcision: an ethical and legal conundrum. J Contemp Health Law Policy 2000;17(1): 60-134.

[18] General Medical Council. Guidance for doctors who are asked to circumcise male children. Available at: http://www.gmc-uk.org/standards/circum.htm

[19] British Medical Association. "Circumcision of male infants: Guidance for Doctors." London: British Medical Association, 1996.

[20] British Medical Association. "The law and ethics of male circumcision: Guidance for Doctors." London: British Medical Association, 2003. Available at: http://web.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/malecircumcision2003?OpenDocument&Highlight=2,circumcision

Attorneys for the Rights of the Child
Email: arc@post.harvard.edu

Other links

Important collections of legal and ethical articles are available at:

http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/
http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/

A pamphlet issued by Nocirc (USA) , "Answers to your questions about the bioethics of infant circumcision", is available to download in pdf format here: http://www.nocirc.org/publish

An important statement was issued by the British Medical Association in 2003:

British Medical Association, Medical Ethics Committee,
The law & ethics of male circumcision - Guidance for doctors

Margaret Somerville, "Altering baby boys' bodies: The ethics of infant male circumcision"

Boys too!
A site arguing that under equal opportunity and anti-discrimination legislation, boys should have the same protection against unsought genital alteration that is enjoyed by girls in many western countries.

Association For Genital Integrity
Canadian site documenting a long-running legal case on the legality of routine circumcision of infants

Female genital mutilation

Research, Action and Information Network for the Bodily Integrity of Women

Amnesty International
Amnesty International correctly defines female genital mutilation as the removal of any part of the female genitalia, by which definition the removal of any part of the male genitalia must similarly be defined as male genital mutilation. Yet Amnesty has been reluctant to take a stand against forcible male circumcision, and you will find nothing about it on their website.

Female Genital Mutilation Education and Networking Project