Circumcision and law
Laws restricting, regulating, or banning circumcision, some dating back to ancient times, have been enacted in many countries and communities. In a number of modern states, circumcision is presumed to be legal, but laws pertaining to assault or child custody have been applied in cases involving circumcision. In the case of non-therapeutic circumcision of children, proponents of laws in favor of the procedure often point to the rights of the parents or practitioners, namely the right of freedom to religion. Those against the procedure point to the boy's right of freedom from religion. In several court cases, judges have pointed to the irreversible nature of the act, the grievous harm to the boy's body, and the right to self-determination, and bodily integrity.
History of Circumcision in Judaism
There are ancient religious requirements for circumcision. The Hebrew Bible commands Jews to circumcise their male children on the eighth day of life, and to circumcise their male slaves (Genesis 17:11–12).
Laws banning circumcision are also ancient. The ancient Greeks prized the foreskin and disapproved of the Jewish custom of circumcision. 1 Maccabees, 1:60–61 states that King Antiochus IV of Syria, the occupying power of Judea in 170 BCE, outlawed circumcision on penalty of death. one of the grievances leading to the Maccabean Revolt.
According to the Historia Augusta, the Roman emperor Hadrian issued a decree banning circumcision in the empire, and some modern scholars argue that this was a main cause of the Jewish Bar Kokhba revolt of 132 CE. The Roman historian Cassius Dio, however, made no mention of such a law, and blamed the Jewish uprising instead on Hadrian's decision to rebuild Jerusalem as Aelia Capitolina, a city dedicated to Jupiter.
Antoninus Pius permitted Jews to circumcise their own sons. However, he forbade the circumcision of non-Jews that were either foreign-slaves or non-Jewish members of the household, contrary to Genesis 17:12 He also made it illegal for a man to convert to Judaism. Antoninus Pius exempted the Egyptian priesthood from the otherwise universal ban on circumcision.
In 1993, a non-binding 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. No prosecutions have occurred in Queensland, and circumcisions continue to be performed.
In 2002, Queensland police charged a father with grievous bodily harm for having his two sons, then aged nine and five, circumcised without the knowledge and against the wishes of the mother. The mother and father were in a family court dispute. The charges were dropped when the police prosecutor revealed that he did not have all family court paperwork in court and the magistrate refused to grant an adjournment.
Cosmetic circumcision for newborn males is currently banned in all Australian public hospitals, South Australia being the last state to adopt the ban in 2007; the procedure was not forbidden from being performed in private hospitals. In the same year, the Tasmanian President of the Australian Medical Association, Haydn Walters, stated that they would support a call to ban circumcision for non-medical, non-religious reasons. In 2009, the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute released its Issues Paper investigating the law relating to male circumcision in Tasmania, it "highlights the uncertainty in relation to whether doctors can legally perform circumcision on infant males".
The Tasmania Law Reform Institute released its recommendations for reform of Tasmanian law relative to male circumcision on 21 August 2012. The report makes fourteen recommendations for reform of Tasmanian law relative to male circumcision.
According to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia:
- "To date, the legality of infant male circumcision has not been tested in the Courts. It is thus assumed to be legal if it is performed competently, in the child’s best interest, and after valid consent has been obtained."
- "At all times the physician must perform the procedure with competence and at all times, the parent and physician must act in the best interests of the child. Signed parental consent for any treatment is assumed to be valid if the parent understands the nature of the procedure and its associated risks and benefits. However, proxy consent by parents is now being questioned. Many believe it should be limited to consent for diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions, and that it is not relevant for non-therapeutic procedures."
England and Wales
One 1999 case, Re "J" (child's religious upbringing and circumcision) said that circumcision in Britain required the consent of all those with parental responsibility, or the permission of the court, acting for the best interests of the child, and issued an order prohibiting the circumcision of a male child of a non-practicing Muslim father and non-practicing Christian mother with custody. The reasoning included evidence that circumcision carried some medical risk; that the operation would be likely to weaken the relationship of the child with his mother, who strongly objected to circumcision without medical necessity; that the child may be subject to ridicule by his peers as the odd one out and that the operation might irreversibly reduce sexual pleasure, by permanently removing some sensory nerves, even though cosmetic foreskin restoration might be possible. The court did not rule out circumcision against the consent of one parent. It cited a hypothetical case of a Jewish mother and an agnostic father with a number of sons, all of whom, by agreement, had been circumcised as infants in accordance with Jewish laws; the parents then have another son who is born after they have separated; the mother wishes him to be circumcised like his brothers; the father for no good reason, refuses his agreement. In such a case, a decision in favor of circumcision was said to be likely.
In 2001 the General Medical Council had found a doctor who had botched circumcision operations guilty of abusing his professional position and that he had acted "inappropriately and irresponsibly", and struck him off the register. A doctor who had referred patients to him, and who had pressured a mother into agreeing to the surgery, was also condemned. He was put on an 18-month period of review and retraining, and was allowed to resume unrestricted practice as a doctor in March 2003, after a committee found that he had complied with conditions it placed on him. According to the Northern Echo, he "told the committee he has now changed his approach to circumcision referrals, accepting that most cases can be treated without the need for surgery.".
Fox and Thomson (2005) argue that consent cannot be given for non-therapeutic circumcision. They say there is "no compelling legal authority for the common view that circumcision is lawful."
In 2005 a Muslim man had his son circumcised against the wishes of the child's mother who was the custodial parent.
In 2009 it was reported that a 20-year-old man whose father had him ritually circumcised as a baby is preparing to sue the doctor who circumcised him. This is believed to be the first time a person who was circumcised as an infant has made a claim in the UK. The case is expected to be heard in 2010.[needs update]
On 1 October 2013, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted a resolution in which they state they are "particularly worried about a category of violation of the physical integrity of children," and include in this category "circumcision of young boys for religious reasons."
In August 2006, a Finnish court ruled that the circumcision of a four-year-old boy arranged by his mother, who is Muslim, to be an illegal assault. The boy's father, who had not been consulted, reported the incident to the police. A local prosecutor stated that the prohibition of circumcision is not gender-specific in Finnish law. A lawyer for the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health stated that there is neither legislation nor prohibition on male circumcision, and that "the operations have been performed on the basis of common law." The case was appealed and in October 2008 the Finnish Supreme Court ruled that the circumcision, " carried out for religious and social reasons and in a medical manner, did not have the earmarks of a criminal offence. It pointed out in its ruling that the circumcision of Muslim boys is an established tradition and an integral part of the identity of Muslim men". In 2008, the Finnish government was reported to be considering a new law to legalise circumcision if the practitioner is a doctor and if the child consents. In December 2011, Helsinki District Court said that the Supreme Court's decision does not mean that circumcision is legal for any non-medical reasons. The court referred to the Convention on Human rights and Biomedicine of the Council of Europe, which was ratified in Finland in 2010.
In February 2010, a Jewish couple were fined for causing bodily harm to their then infant son who was circumcised in 2008 by a mohel brought in from the UK. Normal procedure for persons of Jewish faith in Finland is to have a locally certified mohel who works in Finnish healthcare perform the operation. In the 2008 case, the infant was not anesthetized and developed complications that required immediate hospital care. The parents were ordered to pay 1500 euros in damages to their child.
In September 2007, a Frankfurt am Main appeals court found that the circumcision of an 11-year-old boy without his approval was an unlawful personal injury. The boy, whose parents were divorced, was visiting his Muslim father during a vacation when his father forced him to be ritually circumcised. The boy had planned to sue his father for €10,000.
In May 2012, the Cologne regional appellate court ruled that religious circumcision of male children amounts to bodily injury, and is a criminal offense in the area under its jurisdiction. The decision based on the article "Criminal Relevance of Circumcising Boys. A Contribution to the Limitation of Consent in Cases of Care for the Person of the Child" published by Holm Putzke, a German law professor at the University of Passau. The court arrived at its judgment by application of the human rights provisions of the Basic Law, a section of the Civil Code, and some sections of the Criminal Code to non-therapeutic circumcision of male children. Some observers said it could set a legal precedent that criminalizes the practice. Jewish and Muslim groups were outraged by the ruling, viewing it as trampling on freedom of religion.
The German ambassador to Israel, Andreas Michaelis, told Israeli lawmakers that Germany was working to resolve the issue and that it doesn't apply at a national level, but instead only to the local jurisdiction of the court in Cologne. The Council of the Coordination of Muslims in Germany condemned the ruling, stating that it is "a serious attack on religious freedom." Ali Kizilkaya, a spokesman of the council, stated that, "The ruling does not take everything into account, religious practice concerning circumcision of young Muslims and Jews has been carried out over the millenia on a global level." The Roman Catholic archbishop of Aachen, Heinrich Mussinghoff, said that the ruling was "very surprising", and the contradiction between "basic rights on freedom of religion and the well-being of the child brought up by the judges is not convincing in this very case." Hans Ulrich Anke, the head of the Protestant Church in Germany, said the ruling should be appealed since it didn't "sufficiently" consider the religious significance of the rite. A spokesman, Steffen Seibert, for German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated that Jewish and Muslim communities will be free to practice circumcision responsibly, and the government would find a way around the local ban in Cologne. The spokesman stated "For everyone in the government it is absolutely clear that we want to have Jewish and Muslim religious life in Germany. Circumcision carried out in a responsible manner must be possible in this country without punishment.".
In July, a group of rabbis, imams, and others said that they view the ruling against circumcision "an affront on our basic religious and human rights." The joint statement was signed by leaders of groups including Germany's Turkish-Islamic Union for Religious Affairs, the Islamic Center Brussels, the Rabbinical Centre of Europe, the European Jewish Parliament and the European Jewish Association, who met with members of European Parliament from Germany, Finland, Belgium, Italy, and Poland. European rabbis, who urged Jews to continue circumcision, planned further talks with Muslim and Christian leaders to determine how they can oppose the ban together. The Jewish Hospital of Berlin suspended the practice of male circumcision. On 19 July 2012, a joint resolution of the CDU/CSU, SPD and FDP factions in the Bundestag requesting the executive branch to draft a law permitting circumcision of boys to be performed without unnecessary pain in accordance with best medical practice carried with a broad majority.
The New York Times reported that the German Medical Association "condemned the ruling for potentially putting children at risk by taking the procedure out of the hands of doctors, but it also warned surgeons not to perform circumcisions for religious reasons until legal clarity was established." The ruling was supported by Deutsche Kinderhilfe, a German child rights organization, which asked for a two-year moratorium to discuss the issue and pointed out that religious circumcision may contravene the Convention on the Rights of the Child (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.").
The German Academy for Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine (Deutsche Akademie für Kinder- und Jugendmedizin e.V., DAKJ), the German Association for Pediatric Surgery (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Kinderchirurgie, DGKCH) and the Professional Association of Pediatric and Adolescent Physicians (Berufsverband der Kinder- und Jugendärzte) took a firm stand against non-medical routine infant circumcision.
In July, in Berlin, a criminal complaint was lodged against Rabbi Yitshak Ehrenberg for "causing bodily harm" by performing religious circumcision, and for vocal support of the continuation of the practice. In September, the prosecutors dismissed the complaint, concluding that "there is no proof to establish that the rabbi's conduct met the 'condition of a criminal' violation."
In September, Reuters reported "Berlin's senate said doctors could legally circumcise infant boys for religious reasons in its region, given certain conditions."
On 12 December 2012, following a series of hearings and consultations, the Bundestag adopted the proposed law explicitly permitting non-therapeutic circumcision to be performed under certain conditions; it is now §1631(d) in the German Civil Code. The vote tally was 434 ayes, 100 noes, and 46 abstentions. Following approval by the Bundesrat and signing by the Bundespräsident, the new law became effective on 28 December 2012 a day after its publication in the Federal Gazette.
In October 2005 a Nigerian man was cleared of a charge of reckless endangerment over the death of a baby from haemorrhage and shock after he had circumcised the child. The judge directed the jury not to "bring what he called their white western values to bear when they were deciding this case" and after deliberating for an hour and a half they found the defendant not guilty. dead l
In Israel, Jewish circumcision is entirely legal, as is posthumous circumcision. In 1999, the Israeli Supreme Court overruled an attempt to have after-death circumcision outlawed. Though illegal, female circumcision is still practiced among the Negev Bedouin, and tribal secrecy among the Bedouin makes it difficult for authorities to enforce the ban. In 2013, Rabbinical court in Israel ordered a mother, Elinor Daniel, to circumcise her son or pay a fine of 500 Israeli Shekel for every day that the child is not circumcised. She appealed against the Rabbinical court ruling and the High Court ruled in her favour stating, among other considerations, the basic right of freedom from religion.
When Ayaan Hirsi Ali was a Member of the Netherlands Parliament she asked it to consider making the circumcision of male children unlawful. In May 2008 a father who had his two sons, aged 3 and 6 circumcised against the will of their mother was found not guilty of abuse as the circumcision was performed by a physician and due to the court's restraint in setting a legal precedent instead he was given a 6-week suspended jail sentence for taking the boys away from their mother against her will.
In September 2013, the Children's ombudsmen in all Nordic countries issued a statement by which they called for a ban on circumcision of minors for non-medical reasons, stating that such circumcisions violate the rights of children after the Convention on the Rights of the Child to co-determination and protection from harmful traditions.
The Children's Act 2005 makes the circumcision of male children under 16 unlawful except for religious or medical reasons. In the Eastern Cape province the Application of Health Standards in Traditional Circumcision Act, 2001, regulates traditional circumcision, which causes the death or mutilation of many youths by traditional surgeons each year. Among other provisions, the minimum age for circumcision is age 18.
In 2004, a 22-year-old Rastafarian convert was forcibly circumcised by a group of Xhosa tribal elders and relatives. When he first fled, two police returned him to those who had circumcised him. In another case, a medically circumcised Xhosa man was forcibly recircumcised by his father and community leaders. He laid a charge of unfair discrimination on the grounds of his religious beliefs, seeking an apology from his father and the Congress of Traditional Leaders of South Africa. According to South African newspapers, the subsequent trial became "a landmark case around forced circumcision." In October 2009, the Eastern Cape High Court at Bhisho (sitting as an Equality Court) clarified that circumcision is unlawful unless done with the full consent of the initiate.
In 2001, the Parliament of Sweden enacted a law allowing only persons certified by the National Board of Health to circumcise infants. It requires a medical doctor or an anesthesia nurse to accompany the circumciser and for anaesthetic to be applied beforehand. After the first two months of life circumcisions can only be performed by a physician. The stated purpose of the law was to increase the safety of the procedure.
Swedish Jews and Muslims objected to the law, and in 2001, the World Jewish Congress called it "the first legal restriction on Jewish religious practice in Europe since the Nazi era." The requirement for an anaesthetic to be administered by a medical professional is a major issue, and the low degree of availability of certified professionals willing to conduct circumcision has also been subject to criticism. According to a survey, two out of three paediatric surgeons said they refuse to perform non-therapeutic circumcision, and less than half of all county councils offer it in their hospitals. However, in 2006, the U.S. State Department stated, in a report on Sweden, that most Jewish mohels had been certified under the law and 3000 Muslim and 40–50 Jewish boys were circumcised each year. An estimated 2000 of these are performed by persons who are neither physicians nor have officially recognised certification.
The Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare reviewed the law in 2005 and recommended that it be maintained, but found that the law had failed with regard to the intended consequence of increasing the safety of circumcisions. A later report by the Board criticised the low level of availability of legal circumcisions, partly due to reluctance among health professionals. To remedy this, the report suggested a new law obliging all county councils to offer non-therapeutic circumcision in their hospitals, but this was later abandoned in favour of a non-binding recommendation.
Circumcision of adults who grant personal informed consent for the surgical operation is legal.
In the United States, non-therapeutic circumcision of male children has long been assumed to be lawful in every jurisdiction provided that one parent grants surrogate informed consent. Adler (2013) has recently challenged the validity of this assumption. As with every country, doctors who circumcise children must take care that all applicable rules regarding informed consent and safety are satisfied.
While anti-circumcision groups have occasionally proposed legislation banning non-therapeutic child circumcision, it has not been supported in any legislature. After a failed attempt to adopt a local ordinance banning circumcision on a San Francisco ballot, the state of California enacted in October 2011 a law protecting circumcision from local attempts to ban the practice.
In 2012, New York City required those performing metzitzah b'peh, a part of circumcision required by some Hasidim, to obey stringent consent requirements, including documentation. Agudath Israel of America and other Jewish groups have planned to sue the city in response.
Disputes between parents
Occasionally the courts are asked to make a ruling when parents cannot agree on whether or not to circumcise a child.
In January 2001 a dispute between divorcing parents in New Jersey was resolved when the mother, who sought to have the boy circumcised withdrew her request. The boy had experienced two instances of foreskin inflammation and she wanted to have him circumcised. The father, who had experienced a traumatic circumcision as a child objected and they turned to the courts for a decision. The Medical Society of New Jersey and the Urological Society of New Jersey both opposed any court ordered medical treatment. As the parties came to an agreement, no precedent was set. In June 2001 a Nevada court settled a dispute over circumcision between two parents but put a strict gag order on the terms of the settlement. In July 2001 a dispute between parents in Kansas over circumcision was resolved when the mother's request to have the infant circumcised was withdrawn. In this case the father opposed circumcision while the mother asserted that not circumcising the child was against her religious beliefs. (The woman's pastor had stated that circumcision was "important" but was not necessary for salvation.) On 24 July 2001 the parents reached agreement that the infant would not be circumcised.
On 14 July 2004 a mother appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court to prevent the circumcision of her son after a county court and the Court of Appeals had denied her a writ of prohibition. However, in early August 2004, before the Supreme Court had given its ruling, the father, who had custody of the boy, had him circumcised.
In October 2006 a judge in Chicago granted an injunction blocking the circumcision of a 9-year-old boy. In granting the injunction the judge stated that "the boy could decide for himself whether to be circumcised when he turns 18."
In November 2007, the Oregon Supreme Court heard arguments from a divorced Oregon couple over the circumcision of their son. The father wanted his son, who turned 13 on 2 March 2008, to be circumcised in accordance with the father's religious views; the child's mother opposes the procedure. The parents dispute whether the boy is in favor of the procedure. A group opposed to circumcision filed briefs in support of the mother's position, while some Jewish groups filed a brief in support of the father. On 25 January 2008, the Court returned the case to the trial court with instructions to determine whether the child agrees or objects to the proposed circumcision. The father appealed to the US Supreme Court to allow him to have his son circumcised but his appeal was rejected. The case then returned to the trial court. When the trial court interviewed the couple's son, now 14 years old, the boy stated that he did not want to be circumcised. This also provided the necessary circumstances to allow the boy to change residence to live with his mother. The boy was not circumcised.
In September 2004 the North Dakota Supreme Court rejected a mother's attempt to prosecute her doctor for circumcising her child without fully informing her of the consequences of the procedure. The judge and jury found that the defendants were adequately informed of possible complications, and the jury further found that it is not incumbent on the doctors to describe every "insignificant" risk.
In March 2009 a Fulton County, Ga., State Court jury awarded $2.3 million in damages to a 4-year-old boy and his mother for a botched circumcision in which too much tissue was removed causing permanent disfigurement.
In August 2010 an eight-day-old boy was circumcised in a Florida hospital against the stated wishes of the parents. The hospital admitted that the boy was circumcised by mistake; the mother has sued the hospital and the doctor involved in the case.
Before glasnost, according to an article in The Jewish Press, Jewish ritual circumcision was forbidden in the USSR. However, David E. Fishman, professor of Jewish History at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, states that, whereas the heder and yeshiva, the organs of Jewish education, "were banned by virtue of the law separating church and school, and subjected to tough police and administrative actions," circumcision was not proscribed by law or suppressed by executive measures. Jehoshua A. Gilboa writes that while circumcision was not officially or explicitly banned, pressure was exerted to make it difficult. Mohels in particular were concerned that they could be punished for any health issue that might develop, even if it arose some time after the circumcision.
- German court rules circumcision is 'bodily harm', BBC News Europe. Retrieved 13 July 2012
- "Jewish groups condemn court's definition of circumcision as grievous bodily harm". London: The Daily Telegraph. 27 June 2012. Retrieved 27 June 2012.
- "US judge rules 9-year-old need not get circumcised". Reuters. 24 October 2006. Retrieved 30 August 2010.
In a decision cheered by foes of routine circumcision for boys, a judge ruled on Tuesday that a 9-year-old need not be circumcised as his mother wanted....In granting the boy's father an injunction blocking the procedure, the judge said the boy could decide for himself whether to be circumcised when he turns 18.
- Hodges, Frederick M. (2001). "The Ideal Prepuce in Ancient Greece and Rome: Male Genital Aesthetics and Their Relation to Lipodermos, Circumcision, Foreskin Restoration, and the Kynodesme". Bulletin of the History of Medicine. 75 (3): 375–405. doi:10.1353/bhm.2001.0119. PMID 11568485. Retrieved 22 January 2008.
- 1 Maccabees, 1:60–61
- Miller, Geoffrey P. (Spring 2002). "Circumcision: Cultural-Legal Analysis" (PDF (free download)). Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law. 9: 497–585. doi:10.2139/ssrn.201057. Retrieved 17 August 2010.
Ritual circumcision of boys is a durable tradition. Jews of ancient times refused to abandon the practice despite enormous pressure to do so. In 167 BCE the Seleucid emperor Antiochus IV, as part of a campaign to Hellenise the Jews, condemned to death every Hebrew who allowed a son to be circumcised. The Jews responded with the Maccabean revolt, a campaign of guerrilla warfare that resulted in major victories for the rebels and, eventually, a peace treaty that restored Jewish ritual prerogatives.
- "The Ideal Prepuce in Ancient Greece and Rome".
- See, e.g., Alfredo M. Rabello, The Ban on Circumcision as a Cause of Bar Kokhba's Rebellion, 29 ISRAEL L. REV. 176 (1995) (Arguing that the Bar Kokhba rebellion against Roman rule was primarily motivated by the superimposition of foreign religious standards, rather than by some important notion of independence or sovereignty).
- Kraus, Matthew (29 March 2004). "Review of: Jews and Gentiles in the Holy Land in the Days of the Second Temple, the Mishna and the Talmud" – via Bryn Mawr Classical Review.
- "QLRC: Circumcision of Male Infants".
- "Man Receives $360,000 Compensation for Childhood Circumcision". cirp.org.
- "Mother's Fury as Boys Circumcised". cirp.org.
- Pengelley, J (12 November 2007). "SA to ban most circumcisions in state hospitals". The Advertiser. Retrieved 7 April 2012.
- "Public hospitals ban circumcision". The Australian. 12 November 2007.[dead link]
- "Doctors back call for circumcision ban". ABC News. 9 December 2007.
- "Male circumcision". Tasmanian Law Reform Institute.
- Tasmanian Law Reform Institute.Non Therapeutic Male Circumcision. Report No. 17, August 2012
- Tasmanian Law Reform Institute. Non Therapeutic Male Circumcision. Report No. 17, August 2012
- Circumcision (Infant Male) Archived 15 February 2012 at the Wayback Machine. In: Professional Standards and Guidelines. Vancouver, College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, 2009.
- Poulter, Sebastian (1986). English Criminal Law and Ethnic Minority Customs. Butterworths,London. ISBN 0-406-18000-8.
no amount of parental agreement or support can legitimise the circumcision, excision or infibulation of a young girl in this country, unless the operation is for therapeutic purposes.
- "A covenant with the status quo? Male circumcision and the new BMA guidance to doctors". cirp.org.
- Price, Christopher. "Male Circumcision: An Ethical and Legal Affront". cirp.org.
- "Circumcision After the Human Rights Act 1998". cirp.org.
- "Re J (child's religious upbringing and circumcision)". cirp.org.
- "Circumcision doctors 'abused position'". BBC News. 21 August 2001. Retrieved 30 April 2010.
- Circumcision case GP told he can resume career
- Tapsfield, James (3 May 2005). "Muslim Accused of Assaulting Son Through Circumcision". Edinburgh: The Scotsman. Archived from the original on 23 May 2005. Retrieved 5 June 2011.
- "Ritual circumcisions 'illegal'". Daily Mirror.
- Parliamentary Assembly, Council of Europe. Children's Right to Physical Integrity, Resolution 1952., Adopted at Strasbourg, Tuesday, 1 October 2013.
- "Court rules circumcision of four-year-old boy illegal".
- "Supreme Court: Male Circumcision Not A Crime".
- "Finland Considers Legalising Male Circumcision". Ylesiradio. 2 August 2008. Retrieved 17 September 2007.
- Circumcision assault case brings fine – conviction but no punishment for parents, Helsingin Sanomat, HS.fi 2 January 2012
- "Parents Ordered to Pay Circumcised Son 1,500 Euros". Finnish Broadcasting Corporation. 24 February 2010. Retrieved 24 February 2010.
- "The Raw Story - Germany fines circumciser for initiation of 7 boys".
- Breaking News – JTA, Jewish & Israel News
- "Hessenrecht Landesrechtsprechungsdatenbank Entscheidungen der hessischen Gerichte".
- Holm Putzke: Die strafrechtliche Relevanz der Beschneidung von Knaben. Zugleich ein Beitrag über die Grenzen der Einwilligung in Fällen der Personensorge. In: Festschrift für Rolf Dietrich Herzberg, Tübingen 2008, p. 669–709 - Translation: Criminal Relevance of Circumcising Boys. A Contribution to the Limitation of Consent in Cases of Care for the Person of the Child, tanslated by Katharina McLarren.
- German verdict aims to delay circumcision, not ban it, jurist says. Retrieved 16 June 2014
- German court rules non-therapeutic circumcision of boys unlawful. Retrieved 16 June 2014
- Intactivist of the month: Holm Putzke
- "Circumcision: religious right or crime?". TheLocal.de. 27 June 2012. Retrieved 27 June 2012.
- "Muslims, Jews denounce circumcision ruling". TheLocal.de. 27 June 2012. Retrieved 27 June 2012.
- Holm Putzke German verdict aims to delay circumcision, not ban it, jurist says. Retrieved 16 June 2014
- Evans, Stephen. German circumcision ban: Is it a parent's right to choose? BBC News Magazine. Retrieved 13 July 2012
- Day, Matthew (27 June 2012). "Jewish and Muslim groups condemn German circumcision ruling". The Daily Telegraph. London.
- "Israeli parliament slams German circumcision ban". CBS News. AP. 9 July 2012. Retrieved 15 July 2012.
- "Key Muslim group in Germany slams circumcision ruling". European Jewish Press. AFP. 28 June 2012. Retrieved 15 July 2012.
- Ahren, Raphael (13 July 2012). "German government looking for quick fix on circumcision ban". The Times of Israel. Retrieved 15 July 2012.
- "Angela Merkel intervenes over court ban on circumcision of young boys". The Guardian. London. Reuters. 13 July 2012. Retrieved 15 July 2012.
- Rising, David (12 July 2012). "Rabbis Urge German Jews To Continue Circumcisions". Huffington Post. Retrieved 17 July 2012.
- "German court's move to ban circumcision unites religions". Hurriyet Daily News. Anatolia News Agency. 14 July 2012. Retrieved 17 July 2012.
- Jewish Hospital in Berlin suspends circumcisions. YNET News, 1 July 2012.
- "Rechtliche Regelung der Beschneidung minderjähriger Jungen" (PDF) (in German).
- "Beschneidung minderjähriger Jungen" (in German).
- Eddy, Melissa (13 July 2012). "In Germany, Ruling Over Circumcision Sows Anxiety and Confusion". New York Times. Retrieved 23 July 2012.
- "themenportal: Petitionsausschuss korrigiert Fehlentscheidung: Petition gegen vorschnelles Gesetz zur Legalisierung nicht-therapeutischer Beschneidungen seit gestern vom Bundestag zur Unterzeichnung freigeschaltet - Politik - Pressemitteilung".
- Anlässlich des Weltkindertages fordert die Deutsche Kinderhilfe ein klares Bekenntnis zu Kinderrechten statt Festtagsreden: keine nicht-medizinische Beschneidung für einwillig...
- Bundestagspetition zu Beschneidungen | Deutsche Kinderhilfe
- Presseerklärung (4. July 2012) (DGKCH).
- "Startseite » Kinderaerzte-im-Netz".
- WEINTHAL, BENJAMIN (30 August 2012). "Berlin prosecutor nixes circumcision complaint". Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 6 September 2012.
- "Berlin reverses ban on religious circumcisions". MSNBC. Reuters. 9 May 2012. Archived from the original on 11 September 2012. Retrieved 6 September 2012.
- "Beschneidung von Jungen jetzt gesetzlich geregelt" (in German).
- "Gesetz über den Umfang der Personensorge bei einer Beschneidung des männlichen Kindes" (PDF) (in German).
- "Nigerian cleared over circumcision death". Irishtimes. 7 October 2005.
- NOCIRC NEWSLTTR reordered2
- "Bedouin women in Israel are still being circumcised".
- "High Court rules against coerced circumcision".
- "Dutch MP wants ban on male circumcision". cirp.org.
- "Father 'not guilty' in circumcision case - DutchNews.nl". 7 May 2008.
- "Religieuze jongens besnijdenis als mishandeling" (PDF). 2012.
- (Norwegian) Attenårsgrense for omskjæring, [[Dagbladet. Retrieved 27 June 2012]
- Nordic Association of Children's Ombudsmen. Let the boys decide for themselves; 30 September 2013 [Retrieved 27 October 2013]. Tuesday, 1 October 2013
- Lise Marit Kalstad (2 October 2013): Vil la gutter bestemme omskjæring selv Vårt Land. (Norwegian)
- "SOUTH AFRICA: Clamping down on botched circumcisions". IRIN In-Depth. MTHATA. 1 August 2007.
- Peters, Melanie (4 July 2004). "Rastafarian circumcised against his will". South Africa. Sunday Tribune. p. 3. Retrieved 23 April 2007.
22-year-old Cape Town man was taken by force and circumcised against his will this week....He is a Rastafarian convert and strongly opposes Xhosa initiation. The men who forcibly circumcised him also cut off his Rasta dreadlocks.
- "Forced circumcision: Son takes parents on". IOL: News for South Africa and the World. 11 August 2009. Retrieved 30 September 2010.
- "Judgment in forced circumcision case". Legalbrief Today. 14 October 2009. Retrieved 30 September 2010.
- "Snitt som kostar – om omskärelse av pojkar". Sveriges Radio (in Swedish). 22 October 2006.
- "Sweden restricts circumcisions". BBC Europe. 1 October 2001. Retrieved 18 October 2006.
Swedish Jews and Muslims object to the new law, saying it violates their religious rights.
- "Jews protest Swedish circumcision restriction". Reuters. 7 June 2001.
A WJC spokesman said, "This is the first legal restriction placed on a Jewish rite in Europe since the Nazi era. This new legislation is totally unacceptable to the Swedish Jewish community."
- Hofvander Y (February 2002). "New law on male circumcision in Sweden". Lancet. 359 (9306): 630. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07737-1. PMID 11867150.
- Malin Beeck (5 March 2010). "Lång kötid för omskärelse". UppsalaDemokraten (in Swedish).
- "Swedish doctors refuse to circumcise boys". The Local. 25 July 2009.
- Robert Holender (24 July 2009). "Många läkare vägrar utföra omskärelse av unga pojkar". Dagens Nyheter (in Swedish).
- Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (15 September 2006). "Sweden". International Religious Freedom Report 2006. US Department of State. Retrieved 4 July 2007.
- Omskärelse av pojkar (Report) (in Swedish). National Board of Health and Welfare. March 2007. 2007-107-7. Archived from the original on 22 February 2012.
- Peter W. Adler. Is Circumcision Legal? 16(3) Richmond J. L. & Pub. Int. 439 (2013).
- J. Steven Svoboda, Robert S. Van Howe, James G. Dwyer, Informed Consent for Neonatal Circumcision: An Ethical and Legal Conundrum. 17 J Contemporary Health Law Policy 61 (2000)
- Colb, Sherry (8 April 2005). "A proposed bill to ban male circumcision". CNN.
- Evangelista, Benny (3 October 2011). "Circumcision law blocks local bans". San Francisco Chronicle. pp. C–2.
- "N.Y. Board Orders Forms for Circumcision Rite". The Jewish Daily Forward. 13 September 2012. Retrieved 26 December 2012.
- "Exclusive: Agudah Preparing To Sue City Over Metzitza Informed Consent". The Jewish Week. 11 September 2012. Retrieved 26 December 2012.
- "Accord Not To Circumcise Son Still Leaves Heated Legal Debate". cirp.org.
- Thevemot, Carri Geer (25 June 2001). "Gag order issued". Las Vegas Review-Journal.
- "Agreement reached in circumcision case". The Wichita Eagle. 25 July 2001. Retrieved 30 August 2010.
- Alex Branch (13 July 2001). "Wichitans fight over their son's circumcision". The Wichita Eagle.
- "The Examiner: Parents in court over son's circumcision 07/15/04". 26 December 2004. Archived from the original on 26 December 2004.
- "Despite mother's protest, father has boy circumcised". Kansas City Star. 10 August 2004. Archived from the original on 29 October 2004.
- Gerstein, Josh. "Ore. Court Mulls Circumcision Case". The New York Sun. Retrieved 28 December 2007.
- Oregon Judicial Department Appellate Court Opinions
- "Dad appeals teen son's circumcision to U.S. Supreme Court". The Oregonian. May 2008.
- Green, Ashbel S. (7 October 2008). "U.S. Supreme Court rejects Oregon's circumcision, abortion cases". The Oregonian.
- Cole, Janelle (4 September 2004). "Hawley mother loses appeal" (convenience link). The Forum of Fargo-Moorhead. Forum Communications. Retrieved 9 November 2011.
The mother who unsuccessfully sued MeritCare Hospital and one of its doctors over her infant son's circumcision won't get a new trial, the North Dakota Supreme Court said Friday. Anita Flatt of Hawley, Minn., also will have to pay more than $58,000 in costs the doctor and hospital incurred defending themselves, the court ruled. The justices rejected Flatt's argument that she received inadequate information before consenting to her son's circumcision shortly after his birth in 1997. If she had had more information, she would not have consented, she said....Jurors agreed with defense attorneys' arguments that Flatt had been told of the possible complications and that there is no need for doctors to outline every possible "insignificant" risk.
- Katheryn Hayes Tucker (31 March 2009). "Jury Awards $2.3 Million for Botched Circumcision". Law.com.
- Fred Tasker (15 August 2010). "Accidental circumcision leads to lawsuit, protest". The Miami Herald. MiamiHerald.com. Retrieved 17 September 2010.
- Barbara Oka, "Soviet Jews Of All Ages Seek Circumcision", The Jewish Press, 14 March 1991.
- David E. Fishman, "Judaism in the USSR, 1917–1930: The Fate of Religious Education," in: Yaacov Ro'i, ed., Jews and Jewish Life in Russia and the Soviet Union (Cummings Center Series; London: Cass, 1995), 251–262; pp. 251–252.
- "There was no official prohibition of circumcision and, on the whole, even the propaganda attacks on it were relatively restrained, apparently out of consideration for the presence of many millions of Moslems [...] in the Soviet Union. But at the same time numerous pressures were exerted to make observance of this precept [i.e., circumcision] difficult. Needless to say, Jewish members of the Communist Party were in an embarrassing situation when they personally faced the question whether to circumcise their sons [...] And the uncertainty weighed heaviest on the mohalim themselves [...] Any health problem developing in the baby some time after circumcision could serve to incriminate the mohel. It is easy to imagine, for example, the impact of news items on the death of children because of [...] circumcision (and the punishments imposed on mohalim), even if there were no explicit legal bans on circumcision." Jehoshua A. Gilboa, A Language Silenced: The Suppression of Hebrew Literature and Culture in the Soviet Union (London: Associated University Press, 1982), pp. 34–35.
- William E. Brigman. Circumcision as Child Abuse: The Legal and Constitutional Issues. 23 J Fam Law 337 (1985).
- Rich Winkel. Male Circumcision in the USA: A Human Rights Primer
- Ross Povenmire. Do Parents Have the Legal Authority to Consent to the Surgical Amputation of Normal, Healthy Tissue From Their Infant Children?: The Practice of Circumcision in the United States. 7 Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law 87 (1998–1999).
- Gregory J Boyle, J. Steven Svoboda, Christopher P Price, J Neville Turner. Circumcision of Healthy Boys: Criminal Assault? 7 Journal of Law and Medicine 301 (2000). The authors are leading anti-circumcision campaigners.
- Peter W. Adler. Is Circumcision Legal? 16(3) Richmond J. L. & Pub. Int. 439 (2013).
- Amicus curiae briefs filed in Oregon circumcision case: