| Revision as of 05:41, 19 August 2003 edit64.165.201.73 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:28, 24 August 2003 edit undoTruthbomber (talk | contribs)125 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ] has traditionally been presumed legal under British law, although no case has ever decided this issue. One recent case, ''Re J (child's religious upbringing and circumcision)'' (see ) found that circumcision was illegal without the consent of either both the child's parents, or the permission of the court. In recent years many have argued that male circumcision may be illegal under international human rights law. Article 24.3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child provides that State Parties must "take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children..." Male circumcision may fall under "traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children". | ] has traditionally been presumed legal under British law, although no case has ever decided this issue. One recent case, ''Re J (child's religious upbringing and circumcision)'' (see ) found that circumcision was illegal without the consent of either both the child's parents, or the permission of the court. In recent years many have argued that male circumcision may be illegal under international human rights law. Article 24.3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child provides that State Parties must "take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children..." Male circumcision may fall under "traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children". | ||
| In the ], the parents' right to raise their child in their religious faith is protected by the ] to the ]. Although no case has addressed the point precisely, the relative commonness of the procedure for medical, cultural, and hygenic reasons would indicate that preventing ] in the context of a religious practice would not pass constitutional muster in the ]. | In the ], the parents' right to raise their child in their religious faith is protected by the ] to the ]. Although no case has addressed the point precisely, the relative commonness of the procedure for medical, cultural, and hygenic reasons would indicate that preventing ] in the context of a religious practice would not pass constitutional muster in the ]. Although parents are given wide latitude in child rearing, parental discretion is not unlimited in religious matters. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that, "arents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of full and legal discretion when they can make that choice for themselves." (Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944). | ||
| A research paper of the ] (''Circumcision of Male Infants'') concluded that "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", and that doctors who perform circumcision on male infants may be liable to civil claims by that child at a later date. | A research paper of the ] (''Circumcision of Male Infants'') concluded that "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", and that doctors who perform circumcision on male infants may be liable to civil claims by that child at a later date. | ||
Revision as of 23:28, 24 August 2003
Circumcision has traditionally been presumed legal under British law, although no case has ever decided this issue. One recent case, Re J (child's religious upbringing and circumcision) (see ) found that circumcision was illegal without the consent of either both the child's parents, or the permission of the court. In recent years many have argued that male circumcision may be illegal under international human rights law. Article 24.3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child provides that State Parties must "take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children..." Male circumcision may fall under "traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children".
In the United States, the parents' right to raise their child in their religious faith is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Although no case has addressed the point precisely, the relative commonness of the procedure for medical, cultural, and hygenic reasons would indicate that preventing circumcision in the context of a religious practice would not pass constitutional muster in the United States. Although parents are given wide latitude in child rearing, parental discretion is not unlimited in religious matters. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that, "arents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of full and legal discretion when they can make that choice for themselves." (Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944).
A research paper of the Queensland Law Reform Commission (Circumcision of Male Infants) concluded that "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", and that doctors who perform circumcision on male infants may be liable to civil claims by that child at a later date.