Editing Circumcision and law (section)

=== United States ===
[[File:Intact America logo.jpg|thumb|Intact America is one of the groups campaigning for a ban on non-medical nonconsensual circumcision of minors.]]
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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Richmond Journal of Law and the Public Interest &#124; Law School Journals &#124; University of Richmond|url=https://scholarship.richmond.edu/jolpi/|access-date=2022-08-01|website=scholarship.richmond.edu}}</ref> As with every country, doctors who circumcise children must take care that all applicable rules regarding informed consent and safety are satisfied.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Informed Consent for Neonatal Circumcision|url=http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/conundrum/|access-date=2022-08-01|website=www.cirp.org}}</ref>

While anti-circumcision groups have occasionally proposed legislation banning non-therapeutic child circumcision, it has not been supported in any legislature.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Colb, Sherry |date=8 April 2005 |title=A proposed bill to ban male circumcision |publisher=CNN |url=http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/04/08/colb.circumcision/index.html |url-status=live |access-date=7 April 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080527204055/http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/04/08/colb.circumcision/index.html |archive-date=27 May 2008}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Evangelista, Benny |date=3 October 2011 |title=Circumcision law blocks local bans |pages=C–2 |work=San Francisco Chronicle |url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/02/BA411LCKEU.DTL&type=printable}}</ref>

In 2012, New York City required those performing ''[[metzitzah b'peh]]'', the oral suction of the open circumcision wound required by [[Hasidim]], to obey stringent consent requirements, including documentation.<ref>{{Cite news |date=13 September 2012 |title=N.Y. Board Orders Forms for Circumcision Rite |work=[[The Jewish Daily Forward]] |url=http://forward.com/articles/162762/ny-board-orders-forms-for-circumcision-rite/?p=all |url-status=live |access-date=26 December 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120917021032/http://forward.com/articles/162762/ny-board-orders-forms-for-circumcision-rite/?p=all |archive-date=17 September 2012}}</ref> [[Agudath Israel of America]] and other Jewish groups have planned to sue the city in response.<ref>{{Cite news |date=11 September 2012 |title=Exclusive: Agudah Preparing To Sue City Over Metzitza Informed Consent |work=[[The Jewish Week]] |url=http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/breaking-news/exclusive-agudah-preparing-sue-city-over-metzitza-informed-consent |url-status=live |access-date=26 December 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130306064442/http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/breaking-news/exclusive-agudah-preparing-sue-city-over-metzitza-informed-consent |archive-date=6 March 2013}}</ref>

'''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.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Accord Not To Circumcise Son Still Leaves Heated Legal Debate |url=http://www.cirp.org/news/star-ledger01-25-01/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080430121238/http://www.cirp.org/news/star-ledger01-25-01/ |archive-date=30 April 2008 |access-date=19 January 2008 |publisher=cirp.org}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Thevemot |first=Carri Geer |date=25 June 2001 |title=Gag order issued |work=[[Las Vegas Review-Journal]] |url=http://www.reviewjournal.com/cgi-bin/printable.cgi?/lvrj_home/2001/Jun-25-Mon-2001/news/16387263.html |url-status=live |access-date=22 April 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121008090132/http://www.reviewjournal.com/cgi-bin/printable.cgi?/lvrj_home/2001/Jun-25-Mon-2001/news/16387263.html |archive-date=8 October 2012}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite news |date=25 July 2001 |title=Agreement reached in circumcision case |work=The Wichita Eagle |url=http://www.cirp.org/news/wichitaeagle07-24-01 |url-status=live |access-date=30 August 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100628092742/http://www.cirp.org/news/wichitaeagle07-24-01/ |archive-date=28 June 2010}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Alex Branch |date=13 July 2001 |title=Wichitans fight over their son's circumcision |work=The Wichita Eagle |url=http://www.cirp.org/news/wichitaeagle07-13-01/ |url-status=live |access-date=30 August 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100628093503/http://www.cirp.org/news/wichitaeagle07-13-01/ |archive-date=28 June 2010}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{Cite web |date=26 December 2004 |title=The Examiner: Parents in court over son's circumcision 07/15/04 |url=http://examiner.net/stories/071504/new_071504018.shtml |url-status=bot: unknown |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20041226064014/http://examiner.net/stories/071504/new_071504018.shtml |archive-date=26 December 2004}}</ref> However, in early August 2004, before the Supreme Court had given its ruling, the father, who had custody of the boy, had him circumcised.<ref>{{Cite news |date=10 August 2004 |title=Despite mother's protest, father has boy circumcised |work=Kansas City Star |url=http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/9359979.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20041029070148/http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/9359979.htm |archive-date=29 October 2004}}</ref>

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."<ref name="Reut06" />

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.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Gerstein |first=Josh |title=Ore. Court Mulls Circumcision Case |work=The New York Sun |url=http://www.nysun.com/article/65997?page_no=2 |url-status=live |access-date=28 December 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210422011354/https://www.nysun.com/national/ore-court-mulls-circumcision-case/65997/ |archive-date=22 April 2021}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Oregon Judicial Department Appellate Court Opinions<!-- Bot generated title --> |url=http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S054714.htm |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080128180514/http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S054714.htm |archive-date=28 January 2008 |access-date=25 January 2008}}</ref> The father appealed to the US Supreme Court to allow him to have his son circumcised<ref>{{Cite news |date=May 2008 |title=Dad appeals teen son's circumcision to U.S. Supreme Court |work=[[The Oregonian]] |url=http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2008/05/dad_appeals_teen_sons_circumci.html |url-status=live |access-date=17 May 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080602223343/http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2008/05/dad_appeals_teen_sons_circumci.html |archive-date=2 June 2008}}</ref> but his appeal was rejected. The case then returned to the trial court.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Green |first=Ashbel S. |date=7 October 2008 |title=U.S. Supreme Court rejects Oregon's circumcision, abortion cases |work=[[The Oregonian]] |url=http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1223344525313320.xml&coll=7&thispage=1 |url-status=live |access-date=22 April 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304055428/http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1223344525313320.xml&coll=7&thispage=1 |archive-date=4 March 2016}}</ref> 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.

'''Other disputes'''

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 plaintiffs were adequately informed of possible complications, and the jury further found that it is not incumbent on the doctors to describe every "insignificant" risk.<ref name="FargoForum2004">{{Cite news |last=Cole |first=Janelle |date=4 September 2004 |title=Hawley mother loses appeal |work=[[The Forum of Fargo-Moorhead]] |publisher=[[Forum Communications]] |format=[[WP:CONV|convenience link]] |url=http://www.cirp.org/news/theforum09-04-04/ |url-status=live |access-date=9 November 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111212033017/http://www.cirp.org/news/theforum09-04-04/ |archive-date=12 December 2011 |quote=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.}}</ref>

In March 2009 a [[Fulton County, Georgia|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.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Katheryn Hayes Tucker |date=31 March 2009 |title=Jury Awards $2.3 Million for Botched Circumcision |url=http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202429531287 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090414172527/http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202429531287 |archive-date=14 April 2009 |access-date=13 April 2009 |publisher=Law.com}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Fred Tasker |date=15 August 2010 |title=Accidental circumcision leads to lawsuit, protest |url=http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/09/15/1826768/moms-sues-hospital-over-babys.html |access-date=17 September 2010 |website=Miami Herald}}</ref>