Article info
PDFThe concise argument
Medical, religious and social reasons for and against an ancient rite
- Correspondence to Dr Bennett Foddy, Department of Philosophy, University of Oxford, Suite 8, Littlegate House, 16–17 St. Ebbes St., Oxford OX1 1PT, UK; bennett.foddy{at}philosophy.ox.ac.uk
Citation
Medical, religious and social reasons for and against an ancient rite
Publication history
- First published June 18, 2013.
Online issue publication
April 27, 2016
Request permissions
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Copyright information
Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions
Other content recommended for you
- Infant circumcision: the last stand for the dead dogma of parental (sovereignal) rights
- The child's interests and the case for the permissibility of male infant circumcision
- Female genital alteration: a compromise solution
- Veracity and rhetoric in paediatric medicine: a critique of Svoboda and Van Howe's response to the AAP policy on infant male circumcision
- Ancient rites and new laws: how should we regulate religious circumcision of minors?
- A covenant with the status quo? Male circumcision and the new BMA guidance to doctors
- Male or female genital cutting: why ‘health benefits’ are morally irrelevant
- The development of professional guidelines on the law and ethics of male circumcision
- Value judgment, harm, and religious liberty
- Out of step: fatal flaws in the latest AAP policy report on neonatal circumcision