Circumcision of Healthy Boys:
Criminal Assault?
Genital cutting of females, called circumcision or female genital mutilation, has raised outcries of horror.
Proscribed by statute in New South Wales and Victoria, it is also illegal under general laws in most other States and many other jurisdictions.
Female genital mutilation constitutes a common law assault.
Any doctor who performs female genital mutilation in Australia, even with parental consent, or the consent of the female herself, is liable to prosecution, either under the legislation that specifically prohibits it in certain jurisdictions, or under the general assault provisions in common law.
Yet, to date, destructive genital cutting of males, called circumcision or male genital mutilation, has escaped concerted censure.
Despite a continuing reduction over recent years, thousands of healthy Australian baby boys are circumcised annually.
Medicare figures for 1997-1998 reveal almost 20,000 fee-for-service circumcisions on boys, excluding public patients and those outside the medical system.
While rare in Scandinavia and Europe, circumcision also is common in North America.
United Kingdom circumcision rates declined dramatically once it was no longer covered by the National Health Service.
The United States rate has declined from 90 to 60 per cent in recent years.
In Australia, circumcision surgery is still imposed on approximately 10 to 15 per cent of healthy boys.
The general rule in English criminal law, and reflected in other common law jurisdictions, is that any application of force, no matter how slight, is prima facie an assault.
Consent serves as a defence to assaults that do not inflict actual bodily harm. Exceptions to the general prohibition on assaults causing bodily harm include medical treatment.
Lord Templeman's remark in the House of Lords case of 'R v Brown' (involving consensual sado-masochism) that ritual circumcision is lawful is much cited by circumcision advocates.
Those who rely on Lord Templeman do not take adequate account of the difference between the ratio decidendi of a case and an obiter dictum.
The English Law Commission did not cite Lord Templeman or any other case as authority.
The legal effect of 'R v Brown' and the English Law Commission's views has been analysed elsewhere.
Also...
# IS INFANT CIRCUMCISION ADVANTAGEOUS?
# DISADVANTAGES OF CIRCUMCISION.
# INVOLUNTARY CIRCUMCISION VIOLATES HUMAN RIGHTS.
# DISCRIMINATORY PROHIBITION OF FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION VIOLATES HUMAN RIGHTS.
# MEDICAL ATTITUDES.
# CULTURAL BLINDNESS.
# GROWING RESISTANCE.
# LEGAL ACTIONS.
# PARENTS CANNOT CONSENT TO NON-THERAPEUTIC MEDICAL PROCEDURES.
# CONCLUSION.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
.
No comments:
Post a Comment