Editing Circumcision and law (section)

=== United Kingdom ===
Male circumcision has traditionally been presumed to be legal under British law,<ref>{{Cite book |last=Poulter |first=Sebastian |url=http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/poulter/ |title=English Criminal Law and Ethnic Minority Customs |publisher=Butterworths, London |year=1986 |isbn=0-406-18000-8<!-- ISBN shown in the cited webpage is erroneous and invalid. --> |quote=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. |access-date=26 July 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927192841/http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/poulter/ |archive-date=27 September 2007 |url-status=live}}</ref> however some authors have argued that there is no solid foundation for this view in English law.<ref name="cirp">{{Cite web |title=A covenant with the status quo? Male circumcision and the new BMA guidance to doctors |url=http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/UKlaw/fox-thomson2005/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070930184650/http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/UKlaw/fox-thomson2005/ |archive-date=30 September 2007 |access-date=24 July 2007 |publisher=cirp.org}}</ref><ref name="cirp.org">{{Cite journal |last=Price |first=Christopher |year=1997 |title=Male Circumcision: An Ethical and Legal Affront |url=http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/price/#n18 |url-status=live |journal=Bulletin of Medical Ethics |publisher=cirp.org |volume=128 |pages=13–9 |pmid=11655044 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100317152516/http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/price/#n18 |archive-date=17 March 2010 |access-date=6 February 2010}}</ref>

While legal, the [[British Medical Association]] finds it ethically unacceptable to circumcise a child or young person, either with or without competence, who refuses the procedure, irrespective of the parents' wishes, and that parental preference alone does not constitute sufficient grounds for performing NTMC on a child unable to express his own view:<ref>{{Cite web |title=BMA - Health risks and benefits of non-therapeutic male circumcision |url=https://www.bma.org.uk/advice/employment/ethics/children-and-young-people/non-therapeutic-male-circumcision-of-children-ethics-toolkit/5-health-risks-and-benefits-of-circumcision |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191016134205/https://www.bma.org.uk/advice/employment/ethics/children-and-young-people/non-therapeutic-male-circumcision-of-children-ethics-toolkit/5-health-risks-and-benefits-of-circumcision |archive-date=16 October 2019 |access-date=2019-10-16 |publisher=[[British Medical Association]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=BMA - Determining a child's best interests for non-therapeutic male circumcision |url=https://www.bma.org.uk/advice/employment/ethics/children-and-young-people/non-therapeutic-male-circumcision-of-children-ethics-toolkit/6-determining-best-interests-when-it-comes-to-circumcision |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191016134155/https://www.bma.org.uk/advice/employment/ethics/children-and-young-people/non-therapeutic-male-circumcision-of-children-ethics-toolkit/6-determining-best-interests-when-it-comes-to-circumcision |archive-date=16 October 2019 |access-date=2019-10-16 |publisher=[[British Medical Association]]}}</ref>

{{blockquote | The [[British Medical Association|BMA]] considers that the evidence concerning health benefit from NTMC (non-therapeutic male circumcision) is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for boys undergoing circumcision. In addition, some of the anticipated health benefits of male circumcision can be realised by other means – for example, condom use. … There are clearly risks inherent in any surgical procedure: for example, pain, bleeding, surgical mishap and complications of anaesthesia. With NTMC there are associated medical and psychological risks …  The BMA cannot envisage a situation in which it is ethically acceptable to circumcise a child or young person, either with or without competence, who refuses the procedure, irrespective of the parents' wishes. … Parental preference alone does not constitute sufficient grounds for performing NTMC on a child unable to express his own view. … Furthermore, the harm of a person not having the opportunity to choose not to be circumcised or choose not to follow the traditions of his parents must also be taken into account, together with the damage that can be done to the individual's relationship with his parents and the medical profession, if he feels harmed by an irreversible non-therapeutic procedure.| author = {{Flagicon|GB}} [[British Medical Association]]}}

The passage of the [[Human Rights Act 1998]] has led to some speculation that the lawfulness of the circumcision of male children is unclear.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Circumcision After the Human Rights Act 1998 |url=http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/edge1/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040809214819/http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/edge1/ |archive-date=9 August 2004 |access-date=12 September 2004 |publisher=cirp.org}}</ref>

One 1999 case, ''Re "J" (child's religious upbringing and circumcision)''<ref>{{Cite web |title=Re J (child's religious upbringing and circumcision) |url=http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/Re_J/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20031211154626/http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/Re_J/ |archive-date=11 December 2003 |access-date=10 December 2003 |publisher=cirp.org}}</ref> said that circumcision in Britain required the consent of all those with parental responsibility (however this comment was not part of the reason for the judgement and therefore is not legally binding), 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",<ref name="autogenerated2">{{Cite news |date=21 August 2001 |title=Circumcision doctors 'abused position' |work=BBC News |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1502729.stm |url-status=live |access-date=30 April 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081202044009/http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1502729.stm |archive-date=2 December 2008}}</ref> and struck him off the register.<ref name="autogenerated1">{{Cite web |title=Archive news from The Northern Echo |url=https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/archive/2003/3/3/101692.html/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210422011330/https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/archive/2003/3/3/101692.html/ |archive-date=22 April 2021 |access-date=22 April 2021 |website=www.thenorthernecho.co.uk}}</ref> A doctor who had referred patients to him, and who had pressured a mother into agreeing to the surgery, was also condemned.<ref name="autogenerated2" /> 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".<ref name="autogenerated1" />

Fox and Thomson (2005) argue that consent cannot be given for non-therapeutic circumcision.<ref name="cirp" /> 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.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Tapsfield |first=James |date=3 May 2005 |title=Muslim Accused of Assaulting Son Through Circumcision |work=[[The Scotsman]] |location=Edinburgh |url=http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4497150 |access-date=5 June 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050523125330/http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4497150 |archive-date=23 May 2005}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{Cite news |title=Ritual circumcisions 'illegal' |work=[[Daily Mirror]] |url=https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/11/17/snip-op-illegal-115875-21828059/ |url-status=live |access-date=2 April 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111221071804/http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/11/17/snip-op-illegal-115875-21828059/ |archive-date=21 December 2011}}</ref>{{Update inline|date=November 2015}}

In a 2015 case regarding female circumcision, a judge concluded that non-therapeutic circumcision of male children is a "significant harm".<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Svoboda |first=J. Steven |date=1 August 2017 |title=Nontherapeutic Circumcision of Minors as an Ethically Problematic Form of Iatrogenic Injury |url=https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/nontherapeutic-circumcision-minors-ethically-problematic-form-iatrogenic-injury/2017-08 |url-status=live |journal=AMA Journal of Ethics |volume=19 |issue=8 |pages=815–824 |doi=10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.8.msoc2-1708 |pmid=28846521 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210312090149/https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/nontherapeutic-circumcision-minors-ethically-problematic-form-iatrogenic-injury/2017-08 |archive-date=12 March 2021 |access-date=22 April 2021 |via=journalofethics.ama-assn.org |doi-access=free}}</ref> In 2016, the Family Court in [[Exeter]] ruled that a Muslim father could not have his two sons (aged 6 and 4) circumcised after their mother disagreed. Mrs Justice Roberts declared that the boys should first grow old enough "to the point where each of the boys themselves will make their individual choices once they have the maturity and insight to appreciate the consequences and longer-term effects of the decisions which they reach".<ref name="Exeter">{{Cite news |date=18 April 2016 |title=Muslim father loses circumcision court battle over sons |work=BBC News |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cornwall-36074482 |url-status=live |access-date=27 June 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190715204404/https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cornwall-36074482 |archive-date=15 July 2019}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=19 February 2018 |title=Iceland's mooted circumcision ban sparks religious outrage |work=BBC News |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43111800 |url-status=live |access-date=27 June 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180622015223/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43111800 |archive-date=22 June 2018}}</ref>

==== Nottingham case ====
{{update section|date=December 2021}}
In June 2017, Nottinghamshire Police arrested three people on suspicion of "conspiracy to commit grievous bodily harm".<ref name="BBC2207" /> The alleged victim was purportedly circumcised while in his Muslim father's care at his grandparents' in July 2013 without the consent of his mother (a non-religious woman who conceived the child after a casual affair with the man, whom she had separated from after the incident).<ref name="Bannerman">{{Cite news |last=Lucy Bannerman |date=9 April 2018 |title=Mother to sue over son's circumcision |work=The Times |url=https://www.thetimes.com/uk/law/article/mother-to-sue-over-son-s-circumcision-kh09k22p8 |url-status=live |access-date=27 June 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180627035909/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/mother-to-sue-over-son-s-circumcision-kh09k22p8 |archive-date=27 June 2018}}</ref> The mother first contacted social services and eventually the police in November 2014. The police initially dismissed the complaint, but after the mother got help from the anti-circumcision group Men Do Complain and leading human rights lawyer [[Saimo Chahal|Saimo Chahal QC]], they reopened the case, and ended up arresting three suspects involved.<ref name="BBC2207">{{Cite news |date=22 June 2017 |title=Three arrested over boy's circumcision in Nottingham |work=BBC News |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-40358944 |url-status=live |access-date=27 June 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191012084514/https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-40358944 |archive-date=12 October 2019}}</ref> In November 2017, the Crown Prosecution Service explained to the mother in a letter they were not going to prosecute the doctor, who claimed he was unaware of the mother's non-consent. However, Chahal appealed this decision, which she said "lacks any semblance of a considered and reasoned decision and is flawed and irrational", and threatened to bring the case to court.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Jeff Farrell |date=10 November 2017 |title=Doctor avoids prosecution over circumcision on three-month-old baby 'without consent' |work=The Independent |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/doctor-circumcision-three-month-old-baby-no-consent-prosecution-avoid-dr-balvinder-mehat-bakersfield-a8048261.html |url-status=live |access-date=27 June 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180627034144/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/doctor-circumcision-three-month-old-baby-no-consent-prosecution-avoid-dr-balvinder-mehat-bakersfield-a8048261.html |archive-date=27 June 2018}}</ref> The by then 29-year-old mother finally sued the doctor in April 2018.<ref name="Bannerman" /> Niall McCrae, mental health expert from [[King's College London]], argued that this case could mean "the end of ritual male circumcision in the UK", drawing comparisons with earlier rulings against female genital mutilation.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Niall McCrae |date=13 April 2018 |title=The case that could end ritual male circumcision in the UK |work=The Conversation UK |url=https://theconversation.com/the-case-that-could-end-ritual-male-circumcision-in-the-uk-94873 |url-status=live |access-date=27 June 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180627034511/https://theconversation.com/the-case-that-could-end-ritual-male-circumcision-in-the-uk-94873 |archive-date=27 June 2018}}</ref>