It wouldnt matter if medical people failed to protect children if those in law did not also fail them. Doctors would come around if they knew that to persist in mutilating children could mean being sanctioned, losing their licenses, and potentially being jailed. Fear of legal repercussions would matter to them in a way that failure to follow their own medical-ethical rules clearly does not. This is just a footnote to a long paper, but how different would things be now, if a legal precedent had been set-- and had stuck-- 33 years ago?. 17 On April 9,1981, the Belgian Department of Public Prosecutions declared male and female circumcision an assault on physical integrity and consequently contrary to the Belgian International Public Order; thus male circumcision should not be protected under the guarantee of freedom of religion. This decision was rejected by the Court of Appeal in Liege, which considered excision and infibulation to be of a different nature than male circumcision (without explaining how). cirp.org/library/cultural/aldeeb1/ Sami Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh. To Mutilate in the Name of Jehovah or Allah: Legitimization of Male and Female Circumcision. (Translation by Frederick M. Hodges, D. Phil. (Oxon).) Medicine and Law, vol. 13, no. 7-8 ( July 1994): pp. 575-622.
Posted on: Sun, 10 Aug 2014 02:26:17 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015