Responses

other Versions

PDF
Paper
After Cologne: male circumcision and the law. Parental right, religious liberty or criminal assault?
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    American law does not support parental "right to circumcise".


    Dear Editor:

    The otherwise excellent paper by German law professors Merkel and Putze1 fails to sufficiently emphasize the prohibition against using Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) to support physical injury to a child in the name of religion.

    Then Chief Justice Burger wrote the majority opinion for the court and specifically exempted the case from application to physical harm. In his opinio...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.