Article info
PDFCurrent controversies
Infant circumcision: the last stand for the dead dogma of parental (sovereignal) rights
- Correspondence to Dr Robert S Van Howe, Department of Pediatrics and Human Development, Michigan State University College of Human Medicine, 413 E Ohio Street, Marquette, MI 49855, USA; rsvanhowe{at}att.net
Citation
Infant circumcision: the last stand for the dead dogma of parental (sovereignal) rights
Publication history
- Received November 14, 2012
- Revised February 28, 2013
- Accepted March 15, 2013
- First published May 22, 2013.
Online issue publication
April 27, 2016
Article Versions
- Previous version (27 April 2016).
- You are viewing the most recent version of this article.
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
- The child's interests and the case for the permissibility of male infant circumcision
- Female genital alteration: a compromise solution
- Out of step: fatal flaws in the latest AAP policy report on neonatal circumcision
- Circumcision of male infants as a human rights violation
- Veracity and rhetoric in paediatric medicine: a critique of Svoboda and Van Howe's response to the AAP policy on infant male circumcision
- The limits of parental responsibility regarding medical treatment decisions
- The development of professional guidelines on the law and ethics of male circumcision
- Better to hesitate at the threshold of compulsion: PKU testing and the concept of family autonomy in Eire
- The child's right to an open future: is the principle applicable to non-therapeutic circumcision?
- After Cologne: male circumcision and the law. Parental right, religious liberty or criminal assault?