Motion To Dismiss Chapter 7 Sample: Fill & Download for Free

Well, here we have a whopper. Answer this question in 25 words or less!Now, I am tempted to try. But the question caught me as I was re-reading (as I am wont to do) Herbert Spencer’s Principles of Sociology, an eight-part/three volume treatise from the late 19th century.To prepare himself for his gargantuan task, Herbert Spencer hired assistants to read through the available histories and travel literature to concoct a multi-volume, carefully organized Human Relations Area Files-like Descriptive Sociology, to provide him with the facts necessary to engage in his work. This was long before universities collected and collated vast data sets for sedentary study. (I have only one volume of this impressive work, the one on England.)But in Principles of Sociology (of which I own all sections in multiple copies), Spencer brought several major strains of sociology together before others had a chance to treat them separately. And these are indeed related to the question asked by our Quoran. Society is organized for cooperation, says Spencer — indeed, only in cooperation does ‘society’ exist — and order is an emergent property of people trying to get by, to improve their lot . . . or at least not slip into extinction. Spencer tracked past and then-present societies using a few key concepts. These include:Structure of institutionsFunctions of institutionsThe natural selection of institutionsThe evolution, equilibrium and decay of institutionsMilitary versus Industrial modes of interactionOddly, a straightforward praxeological view of society did not emerge in his Principles of Sociology, but had to wait to take primary place in his last volume of his Synthetic Philosophy, his controversial Principles of Ethics. But praxeology — the action-centric viewpoint — is assumed under “function,” and lies in the background of all the above viewpoints. His action viewpoint was strongly criticized by Talcott Parsons in his amazing survey of sociological ideas, The Structure of Social Action. But while Parsons is a great guide to Max Weber and Vilfredo Pareto and others,* his dismissive attitude to Spencer, evidenced in the first page of his book, is a tell: he did not understand Spencer. Parsons called Spencer’s view of human action ‘the utilitarian theory of action,’ and proposed an alternative, ‘the voluntarist theory of action,’ which is very much in the mode of economist Ludwig von Mises; alas, ‘utilitarian theory of action’ is not very helpful to understanding Spencer’s approach to how society is organized. Jonathan Turner’s survey is a major and important corrective.Spencer was an evolutionary theorist. He contributed to the growth of evolutionism both before and after Darwin and Wallace’s great contribution. Spencer coined the phrase “survival of the fittest,” by which he meant, oddly, “the survival of the fit-enough.” He had a schema for long-term processes, essentially a macro-version of the life history of an organism: Evolution to Equilibrium, then decay to Dissolution. This is the arc of life writ large. Spencer’s view is of evolution is progressive, and its opposite process is decline and death — which he called “Dissolution” and, in other places, “retrogression.” Spencer concentrated on the first, upward motion, not on decline, and this is the major and most obvious flaw in his work.Spencer studied how human beings organize themselves in an institutional framework, as indicated above. What is an institution? you ask. ‘An institution is a constructed, persistent organizing practice or relationship within a culture,’ is how economist Daniel Kian Mac Kiernan defines it. For Spencer’s own definition, I send you to Part II of the treatise. And if you want to get a clue to how society does go about organizing itself — how we organize ourselves with each other micro-socially, meso-socially and macro-socially (distinctions from Jonathan Turner) — on the principles listed above, ruminate on the titles of the parts of the Principles:The Data of SociologyThe Inductions of SociologyDomestic InstitutionsCeremonial InstitutionsPolitical InstitutionsEcclesiastical InstitutionsProfessional InstitutionsIndustrial InstitutionsSpencer’s original plan included sections on language and ethics, but he gave up on those due to old age. And it was a large treatise as it stands.I could go on about this for hours. Just a few quick notes:The Data chiefly looks at primitive religion and the factors that went into it, and the vital role these social forces have played in making us who and what we are. It is a good contrast to the first section of First Principles, Spencer’s first volume of his Synthetic Philosophy, “The Unknowable,” which is a peculiar treatise on the metaphysics of ‘nescience,’ of the limits of our knowledge and … of mysticism.While Spencer categorizes the study of sociology as moving from organic evolution to super-organic evolution — great term, “super-organic” — in The Inductions of Sociology he puts forth his “Society Is An Organism” metaphor, which confused his critics. It is not that difficult to understand, and it is not all that problematic.In his initial sketch for the treatise, he did not include this section. Like a lunkhead bachelor, domestic relations had not crossed his mind. Of course, he had the wit to revise his plan. His discussion of polygyny and monogamy is very good.His treatment of ceremony as micro-social action is my favorite section of the treatise.Political Institutions, a work highly praised by the great Henry Sidgwick, contains an extremely clear development of the idea we know today as exaptation. This concept is vital to understanding much of society’s more peculiar features.Too many modern seculars look at the world in the manner of Christopher Hitchens — that religion ruins everything. Before you leap to that conclusion, study how Spencer explains religion’s integral role in the evolution of our civilization. A key concept here was later dubbed The Thomas Theorem.The importance of know-how developing in specific occupations of civilized life gets an interesting treatment in Professional Institutions.The final section, Industrial Institutions — in which Spencer aims to place a capstone on his military-industrial dichotomy — is quite good, though perhaps Spencer’s radical individualistic liberalism inhibited him from expanding the chapter on “Slavery” to an adequate length. His concluding chapters, with a prominent treatment of “Socialism,” is a landmark analysis.Many folks claim to hate his style — Charles Darwin, for example, and almost any writer today — while others, such as myself, regard him as a master writer — Mark Twain was a famous defender; Alfred Russel Wallace was another. Here is a sample of his work, from the final part of the treatise:The necessity of dividing any total work into parts, is, indeed, illustrated in the actions of a single person. Suppose a clerk is set to wrap up, and address, many copies of a pamphlet. If, pursuing an unmethodic course, he first cuts out one piece of wrapping paper, then lays down the knife, takes a pamphlet and folds it up, then seizes the paste-brush and fastens the wrapper, then puts back the brush and, looking at the address-book, dips his pen and writes, it is clear that before he has finished he will have wasted much time and energy in these changes of occupation and changes of implements. If he is business-like he will first cut all the wrappers required, next he will address them all, then arranging a score or more one over another so as to expose the edge of each, he will wet with paste the whole number at once. In succession he will place each pamphlet so as to bring the ready-pasted edge of a wrapper into a fit position, and will turn the pamphlet over and fix it. Finally he will put on the stamps and tie up into parcels. From this individual division of labour to social division of labour the transition is obvious. For if, instead of being performed one after another by a single person, each of these processes is performed by a different person, we have a division of labour as ordinarily understood.But beyond the immediate advantage gained when an individual divides his work into separate parts, or when a number of individuals divide the separate parts among them, there is, in this last case, a remoter advantage gained of great importance. When each of the cooperating individuals has his powers devoted to one process, he acquires by practice such skill that he executes his portion of the total work far more rapidly and effectually than it can be executed by one who undertakes all the portions.Note that cooperation is key. That is how society is organized: cooperation in a context of competition, with conflicts forming something of a boundary.But evolution as progress was his theme, so I will end with a snapshot of the beginning of his final section:N.B. Sociology and social psychology and anthropology and economics have had a long history since Spencer’s behemoth of a book, so there is no point in offering a long survey on Quora where whole books have been written that could be consulted. Treatises in sociology that came along after Spencer that I found enlightening include work by Georg Simmel, William Graham Sumner, Max Weber, Vilfredo Pareto, Talcott Parsons, Erving Goffman, and Jonathan Turner. Surveys of the discipline that I have learned from include those by Albion Small and Randall Collins as well as the above-mentioned Parsons and Turner. Those who are thinking of studying either sociology or Spencer’s attempt at it might begin not with the Principles but with his methodological treatise/primer: The Study of Sociology, a very wise book. Jonathan Turner’s short 1985 study, Herbert Spencer: A Renewed Appreciation, is the best contemporary discussion available.N.B.2 The quote from the economist, above, can be found here: purpose.

Yes, and this is beyond existing in mere thoughts.While it would be great to know everything before we do anything, it is not really a practical approach to life to always be waiting for open access, so in practice we have to take a variety of investigative approaches to being able to discern. The Lord tells us we can know Him through all time as He is with us always, telling us what is about to happen.“I am the Lord; that is my name! I will not give my glory to anyone else, nor share my praise with carved idols. Everything I prophesied has come true,and now I will prophesy again. I will tell you the future before it happens.” - Isaiah 42, verses 8–9, NLT.Evidence in Scripture (and History, with a side of philosophy, confirmed by extensively tested dead sea scrolls):I have heard it said many times that faith is the antithesis of reason, but in order for that to be so, there would have to be some kind inbuilt disagreement in the words themselves and there isn’t. According to the Biblical use and known etymology of the word 'faith,' what is called faith is a belief in what is not seen but which is based on evidence. So faith may have perhaps been a concept like hope before becoming faith, but when evidence was added and not imagined or "felt," that is when it became faith. You know what evidence is: evidence which can be seen or established is reason. If there are reasons to believe in microwaves and a summer breeze, then there is room for faith as defined at least as a form of belief based in reason. As long as evidence is involved, the two cannot be oppositional nor entirely separated.There is abundant Biblical scripture claiming to tell what will happen before it does and that is called prophecy. These could be gone over for quite some time as the predictions that range from immediate fulfillment to millenia in advance and as some believe are even ongoing number in the thousands. These are written on very old scrolls and stones and for some of these predictions the dates even of the writing of the scrolls themselves are verifiable. For example, even were one to discount other sources, using carbon-dating of dead sea scrolls in tandem with well-known world history, it has been confirmed at the highest levels of scholarly authority and can be confirmed perhaps with permission in person in your own hands that events predicted in the books of Daniel and Ezekiel were written about well in advance of happening.There is one in particular that stands out in my mind with contextual application to studied and philosophical arguments, and which perhaps may appeal both to theistic and atheistic thinking. Most theistic arguments never make it all the way to becoming a proof of any kind, yet there is one good example of an argument against theists one can invert interestingly. In summary, Russell's teapot argument itself is that Bertrand Russell said, and I’m paraphrasing, that if he claimed there was a teapot too tiny to see with our current telescopes orbiting the Sun between Earth and Mars, who could he expect to believe him?The argument has been inverted by some Theistic thinkers a little more convincingly than most of their original arguments when one says, "How can you say that God does not exist? If there are over fifty billion galaxies with untold planets, the number of which whether infinite or set is beyond our knowing, and I were to say that there is no rock anywhere pink in color with yellow rings and blue polka-dots, you would be well within logic to say to me that by what you know of my experience I could not be believed to know that such a rock does not exist." Yet even that argument has a far greater, stranger and more exaggerated antitypical of Russell’s teapot version playing out in real life. The proof of the inverse of the teapot argument is far more convincing from the Bible than in any hypothetical proposition of things one could or could not claim:Imagine the God of the Bible picks a spot on earth and says that this one easy to do thing, something anyone could do, will never happen right there. Rather than an out of reach potentially infinite sample of hypothetical relevance, God cleverly reverses all of that, putting evidence and challenge all within our finite reach. How many people might you think would try to rush there to that spot and do that thing to prove God and the Bible absolutely wrong? Well, we do not have to imagine.In the movie, 'Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade' there is a beautiful stone structure, but it is not a temple as the movie portreys it to be. It is a library in a city, a very great city, called Petra - located high in the top of a mountain called Mt. Sier. Once the capital city of Edom it has a very scenic structure, with giant stone pillars, high stairs and vast rooms, all carved into the very rock of the mountain itself. The mountain was a natural fortress for that city, with such steep sides it could only be accessed on foot through a narrow ravine, difficult for even three people to stand shoulder to shoulder within Such a city in the ancient world, it would seem might never fall to enemies. Not so, according to Ezekiel chapter 25, verse 13, chapter 35, verse 3 but most especially how it is worded in Jeremiah chapter 49, where it says in verse 18, "No one shall remain there, nor shall a son of man dwell in it." You can go there, to this day, and see the place for yourself and the emptiness of it. The locals say it is one of the most haunted places in the world, a whole haunted mountain, and perhaps even the inspiration for the one in the Lord of the Rings, supposedly inhabited by what the locals call "Jinn" or"Al-jinn." You would think it would be easy, just to set up shop there and prove that prophecy wrong. Yet, no one does. People tour by day at times but do not linger in the night. Even Isis occupied the surrounding region, but kept out of the city itself. This is both proof of the inverse, like mankind can neither make or find on our own, and it is held up to the highest of standards:"But you may wonder, ‘How will we know whether or not a prophecy is from the LORD?’ If the prophet speaks in the LORD’s name but his prediction does not happen or come true, you will know that the LORD did not give that message. That prophet has spoken without my authority and need not be feared." -Deuteronomy 18: verses 21 and 22, KJV.Another reason I brought up this prophecy in particular, rather than talking about the foundations of prophecy first or laying out the timeline showing the history of the thousands of prophecies fulfilled, is to address the modern concept of what is real, in regard to our concepts of reality of the past. You see, there is this lie going around out there in academia that mankind used to view the world in allegory in order to believe in God. They base this viewpoint on the idea that diseases, fires, and weather were often in times of old said to be acts of God, and even blamed on people's sins, and that it is only recently that we as a species or at least supposedly the most civilized or thinking or academic peoples have come to agreement about adopting a manifest reality as our reality: which is based on the physical things our five senses can confirm around us as fact or at least less abstract. I argue that people have always known more reality by what is closest to them and most easily seen. Now, if you wish to, you may go to Petra or another of the many places which have gone through dramatic changes mentioned in Biblical prophecy where you can confirm the physical reality surely contained within the words of scripture as a part of your manifest reality as well.Now, some will say there is no adversary, or devil, or Lucifer, or serpent, or fallen host, so here is from the Tanakh, the earliest version of the Hebrew Bible:Ketuvim:Psalm 82, what is written there…**1** (God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. stands in the assembly of the Angels and among the Angels he will judge.**2** (How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah. long will you vindicate evil and accept the face of the wicked?Tell me what you intetpret from the Nevi’im in:“And he answered, Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them.” 2 Kings 6:16In Genesis 6:1–4, what is said to be a precursor for the flood? I have heard a couple of interpretations on this event and not insignificant extrapolation and I have honestly had difficulty with every viewpoint I have heard thus far.I often have told people who dismiss the concept of extraterrestrials of these passages about meetings with beings representing other realms:(Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7)this is in the Tanakh:"How are you fallen from heaven,O Shining One, son of Dawn!How are you felled to earth,O vanquisher of nations!"Isaiah 42:12Chronicles, Job, Psalms, and Zechariah all mention the accuser, I thought.Shining One and Light bearer, that Isaiah text, it is very subtle difference… the whole debate seems to paradigm on whether the shining one could also be the adversary and the serpent whose head is crushed, who bruises the seed’s heel, or whether it could not be held to be so. Whether the gods being cast down and judged for allowing evil to prevail could be held as a number with said adversary who is also mentioned as being cast down or whether it could not be held to be so; although… if it were, it might also parallel how the name Ha satan was also given a human ruler seen as adversarial to God’s people and/or a prosperity of wickedness. Is that then in alignment with what is written more or with what is thought about what is written? Did this adversary trouble Job at the Lord’s behest or rather, was this adversary attending in representation of what he took to be his realm and the Lord thought Job a better representative of the Earth than perhaps this accuser, thus the use of the word consider. Now, the Lord pointing out a rightful representative, which would always be the case for the upright man of the Lord’s choosing, this became a matter of pride for the accuser, someone seen as a threat.Just some of the science in just the opening verses, Genesis 1:God creating in the manner in which He does in Genesis 1 is a very intelligent method to explain the foundations of all matter. Consider the following…Let me set the stage for three everyday extraordinary moments in your mind:An electric spark is arcing in between two vertical parallel sides of what looks like a long tuning fork, and as it rises, increases brightness, width, volume and pitch.A small shrimp clicks it’s claw and a tiny bubble shoots out, rapidly reducing in size and glowing.It is a rainy summer afternoon, the sun is shining, and the shutter on the manual camera is set very fast. most of the rain drops and background are out of focus, but one is at the right range to be very much in focus and contained within this rain drop is a very clear snowflake.What do these three have in common: what crossover might there be between what is happening in these three situations in terms of quantum physics?The first example is free electrons in great number becoming audible as those from background or cosmic radiation and an electrical field of other electrons and ions interact across a gap in the air which is usually non conductive has dielectric breakdown and becomes conductive because of the intensity level or resonant frequency of the field and then changing frequency in continuous supply.The second is called Sonoluminescence, that is light generated by sound coming from within the claw of a Pistol shrimp. That bubble grows in intensity as it cavitates, reaching even beyond solar surface temperatures and is quite destructive to anything with which it comes into contact.That photograph displays the captured motion of water molecules, as all snowflakes show.The key to what connects these three is small fluctuations in frequency or resonance on the quantum level very much like what we know as sound, but on a much less detectable level: in electrons. This takes place in containment electrons as well, and is described in the Pauli Exclusion Principle, which is perhaps the most functional aspect of all known forms of matter.Light is held in its orbitals literally by sound like vibrations - resonant frequency, or what we could also see as echoes… “Let there be light.” (Sonoluminescence)Even our voices can make shapes in silt as appear to be of living organisms in great detail, as was first shown through an experiment conducted nearly a century and a quarter ago and is illustrated in an out of print book by E.J. Waggoner - If memory serves, it was the one called, ‘The Gospel of Creation.’All the way back to Elijah, prophets have been given a sign or wonder to call attention to the delivery of a message from the Lord.Unfortunately for some, but amazing for those who take advantage in knowledge of what this means, now there is a reversal going on, because it is allowed that since we can know our Lord through the Word our Savior by His character through His Spirit in person, He considers signs and wonders to be unnecessary in calling attention to Himself for the time being, for it is…“Then he said to me, “This is what the LORD says to Zerubbabel: It is not by force nor by strength, but by my Spirit, says the LORD of Heaven’s Armies.” - Zechariah 4:6, NLT.These are the days where the Lord’s Holy Spirit gives us access to know Him. Signs and wonders are crass in comparison to knowing Him… and perhaps this is why:“But despite all the miraculous signs Jesus had done, most of the people still did not believe in him.” - John 12:37, NLT.It is predicted the enemies of God and false prophets will be allowed signs and wonders for now instead, the reversal of what happened with Elijah and the prophets of Ba’al at Megiddo:“For false messiahs and false prophets will rise up and perform great signs and wonders so as to deceive, if possible, even God’s chosen ones.” - Matthew 24:24, NLT.The word Armageddon itself means a reversal of Megiddo.Usually these false prophets do something to tweak belief a little at a time for complacency against what was formerly known from other religions, such as with one false prophet I can think of: Spiritism; with another: Puritanism; with another: Lawlessness; with the largest following: Gainsaying of the authority of Jesus as our God; with the second largest following: Polytheism, Polyentheism and Deification of the dead into identity reassigned Idolatry.“Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.”“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;”“And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.”2 Timothy 2–4The gods of Grecia, for example, we see the process of their formation happening in the legend of the Anzac spirit...The perception of difference used regarding these soldiers has been held to be:Endurance, courage, ingenuity, good humour, larrikinism, and mateship.Best I can do for anyone not having heard of larrikinism is kind of a devil-may-care maverick, to label it in likeness with the rest listed.It is a matter of the human condition that most ideas about a god come from us. Pareiodolia and Apophenia, along with other modes of confirmation bias explain the strange ideas some people carry with them about deities.I have found that primarily, it is groups of people getting nostolgic together about the dead who keep on piling on positive attributes until it becomes indistinct from their concept of worship, which is fetishised and often moores the focus on past glorification.Have you ever seen Titanic, those scenes with the music being played as the boat goes down? Fabulously filmed. The truth of the tragedy is emphasized here, but for whom - to what end?Before wars, media campaigns are started which seeded this perception of the brave soldier, which some particularly impressive bearer of some such qualities upon various content creators members of that generation may have been endeared. Upon the news, the awful unacceptable news, grief struck a nation a solid blow, in more ways than one. This happened with some regularity in Grecia, and they too venerated the dead in like manner with the best things said about them. In Grecia, however it resulted in deification of the dead post mortem.Such ideology and statue building is inevitably funded by those men left behind who own quarries and forges, buying what good will they can through the appearance of great veneration and philanthropy. Honestly, would you do different, given the resentment you might wake up to having survived a generation of what were seen as heroic peers? You can tell from some of the little symbolisms hiding in plain sight in the forms of some of those statues that there was a little hidden dual purpose going on for whomever funded it, that angel in the archway being a lady in a cave, for example.This is another example from theosis or divinization: how self important people in powerful geoglobal religions calling each other majestic or holy appoint their own murder victims to fictional demi-god or even god status in decieved people’s heads post mortem, as though laying claim to innocence or having done the deceased some favor by killing them, also called sainthood as well - same use and result, where the light of the sun god is represented around their heads in artwork.Also what the freemasons had done to George Washington in a painting… The Apotheosis of Washington…The pre-babylonians noticed that roosters and baboons take note of the rising of the sun, Solus, and that flowers and leaves and vines do their best to face it or find the patch of light and took that as worship, so it was really like a kind of animism next generation...That is an aspect of what Biblical worship is, by the way, it is a turning to, and opening to, a vulnerability before, and all of that in natural reverence of... In the Bible, fish were made of the sea, animals of the land, and God self reflected before making humans, drew in the material of our dominion with his hands snd breathed his ruach or spirit into us... thag rest that gets such criticizm was neither sleep nor slumber, but a pause of wonderment, as any parent takes in celebration of a new child. This presence once entered naturally is a lot yo take in, and from whence we came, returning is almost like breathing for the first time not having known what taking a breath was.We fetishise pur neighbor or ourselves rsther frequently though, in our quest for what we lack:Now called St Irenaeus, he had a famous saying that if the Word had become man, it is so that men may be made gods… That thought is older than all of mankind however, and we can know it’s origins with great certainty:“How you are fallen from heaven,O shining star, son of the morning!You have been thrown down to the earth,you who destroyed the nations of the world.13 For you said to yourself,‘I will ascend to heaven and set my throne above God’s stars.I will preside on the mountain of the godsfar away in the north.[e]14 I will climb to the highest heavensand be like the Most High.’15 Instead, you will be brought down to the place of the dead,down to its lowest depths.16 Everyone there will stare at you and ask,‘Can this be the one who shook the earthand made the kingdoms of the world tremble?17 Is this the one who destroyed the worldand made it into a wasteland?”Isaiah 14:12–17And as regards the doubt out there about the Holy Spirit:"Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you." - John 16:7Jesus is the “ I Am” so when He says He is sending His Holy Spirit, there is no “whether” question left to ask.The Lord is not required to produce signs for you.“Only an evil, adulterous generation would demand a miraculous sign, but the only sign I will give them is the sign of the prophet Jonah.” Then Jesus left them and went away. Matthew 16:4, NLTI'm not gonna write you a love song'Cause you asked for it, 'cause you need oneYou see, I'm not gonna write you a love song'Cause you tell me it's make or break in thisIf you're on your wayI'm not gonna write you to stayIf all you have is leavin', I'ma need a better reasonTo write you a love song today(Yeah) Today, yeah

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5039612/Non-therapeutic infant male circumcisionEvidence, ethics, and international law perspectivesAbdullah Alkhenizan, FCFP, MSc and Kossay Elabd, MRCGPAdditional article informationAbstractObjectives:To review the evidence of the benefits and harms of infant male circumcision, and the legal and ethical perspectives of infant male circumcision.Methods:We conducted a systematic search of the literature using PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library up to June 2015. We searched the medical law literature using the Westlaw and Lexis Library law literature resources up to June 2015.Results:Male circumcision significantly reduced the risk of urinary tract infections by 87%. It also significantly reduced transmission of human immunodeficiency virus among circumcised men by 70%. Childhood and adolescent circumcision is associated with a 66% reduction in the risk of penile cancer. Circumcision was associated with 43% reduction of human papilloma virus infection, and 58% reduction in the risk of cervical cancer among women with circumcised partners compared with women with uncircumcised partners. Male infant circumcision reduced the risk of foreskin inflammation by 68%.Conclusion:Infant male circumcision should continue to be allowed all over the world, as long as it is approved by both parents, and performed in facilities that can provide appropriate sterilization, wound care, and anesthesia. Under these conditions, the benefits of infant male circumcision outweigh the rare and generally minor potential harms of the procedure.Male circumcision is defined as partial or complete surgical removal of the foreskin (prepuce) of the penis. The word ‘circumcision’ comes from the Latin circumcidere (meaning ‘to cut around’).1 Infant male circumcision dates back more than 6000 years as indicated in pharaonic drawings and circumcised Egyptian mummies.2 Male circumcision is mandatory in Judaism and it is required to be performed on the eighth day after birth.3 Male circumcision is also mandatory, per the majority of Muslim scholars and it is preferred to be performed on the seventh day after birth.4 Both religions relate the practice of circumcision to Abraham (Ibrahim) who circumcised himself after the age of 80.3,4 Male circumcision is prevalent in many countries as part of the cultures and customs, or for the claimed health benefits of circumcision. The prevalence of male circumcision in the United States is around 85%, 25% in the Philippines, and 4.7% in Australia.5 In UK 15.8% of men are circumcised.6 Therapeutic circumcision represents 2.5% of neonatal circumcisions, which is performed for patients with inflammation in the foreskin, such as phimosis, balanitis, and localized diseases of the foreskin.7 The aim of this paper is to review the evidence of the benefits and harms of infant male circumcision, and the legal and ethical perspectives of infant male circumcision.MethodsThere is significant controversy around non-therapeutic male circumcision. The debate regarding health benefits and harms of male circumcision is a very important component of the controversy. Proponents and opponents of male circumcision can be very selective in citing biased medical research to support their view and dismiss their opponents. The claimed medical benefits of infant male circumcision are very important to the discussion of the ethical and legal debate of infant male circumcision. We conducted a systematic search of the literature using PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library up to June 2015. We limited main references on the benefits and harms of infant male circumcision to systematic reviews of the literature. Systematic review of the literature is a very important type of medical research, which systematically searches for all relevant publications, combines it and analyzes it using appropriate statistical methods. This methodology helped in resolving several controversies in the medical literature. Systematic reviews are considered to be at the top of the hierarchy of the levels of evidence by almost all medical guidelines authorities in the world.8 We searched medical law literature using Westlaw and LexisLibrary law literature resources up to June 2015 (Figure 1).Figure 1Flow diagram of searching results addressing the cost-effectiveness of circumcision.ResultsSeventeen systematic reviews and meta-analysis were found in our search. Four additional studies addressed the cost-effectiveness of circumcision. 10 relevant legal cases were found and reviewed see Figure 1.Benefits of circumcisionMale circumcision is an active area of research. Several well-conducted research papers evaluated the benefits and harms of male circumcision. In a large systematic review of 12 studies9 including 402,908 children, circumcision significantly reduced the risk of urinary tract infections (UTI) by 87%.9 This is a very important outcome as UTIs are relatively serious infections, which can cause permanent kidney damage.10 In a large systematic review including 15 studies (4 randomized control trial and 11 prospective cohort studies) there was a significant reduction in the transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) among circumcised men by 70%.11 A systematic review including 8 studies showed childhood and adolescent circumcision to be associated with 66% reduction in the risk of penile cancer. This benefit disappeared among males circumcised during their adulthood.12 Circumcision was associated with 43% reduction of human papilloma virus (HPV) infection as shown in a large systematic review of 21 studies including more than 14000 participants.13 Human papilloma virus infection is associated with genital warts, penile cancer, and cervical cancer.14,15 The benefits of circumcision extend to their partners. In a large systematic review of 7 studies including 1913 couples, circumcision was associated with a 58% reduction in the risk of cervical cancer among women with circumcised partners compared with women with uncircumcised partners.16 This is a very significant outcome as cervical cancer is the second most common cancer among women worldwide.17 A large systematic review including 8 studies showed male infant circumcision to reduce the risk of foreskin inflammation by 68%.18 Circumcision is an important cultural and religious part of the identity of several communities. Circumcision has important positive influence on the mental and psychosocial aspects of individuals within these communities.19,20Several studies evaluated the harms associated with infant male circumcision. One of the main arguments against infant male circumcision is the claim that male circumcision adversely affects the male sexual function. This claim does not stand scientific scrutiny. A large systematic review of 10 published studies, including a total of 9317 circumcised and 9423 uncircumcised men did not show any adverse effects of circumcision on any aspect of the male sexual function, including erection, orgasm, and ejaculation.21 This was confirmed in another large systematic review analyzing 10 studies including more than 18000 individuals, which showed that male circumcision did not have any adverse effects on different aspects of sexual functions.20 Another large systematic review of 16 prospective studies evaluated complications following neonatal and infant male circumcision, and did not show severe adverse events in 14 studies. Two studies reported severe adverse events at a rate of 2%. The main adverse events were bleeding, infections, incomplete circumcision, and adverse events related to anesthesia. Older children circumcision was associated with more complications than that for neonates and infants.22 A large analysis including 1,400,920 circumcised males in the United States showed the incidence of total male circumcision’s adverse events to be less than 0.5%. The incidences of adverse events were 10-20-folds greater for males circumcised after the age of one year.23Pain is an important harm associated with circumcision; however, several anesthetic methods were shown to be safe and effective in controlling pain during the procedure among infants.24,25To give an estimate of one aspect of the benefit risk ratio of infant male circumcision in UK we use the prevention of penile cancer as an example. The prevalence of penile cancer in UK is increasing and it is exceeding 400 cases of penile cancer diagnosed annually with a 5 years survival rate of around 65%. Approximately 90 patients die because of penile cancer in UK annually, 66% of these deaths (60 deaths) would be prevented by infant male circumcision.26 The documented annual number of deaths related to male circumcision is very rare; however, it is estimated to be 16.27 Overall at least 40 deaths in UK could be prevented by adopting infant male circumcision. Similar figures were estimated in Australia and the United States.28Cost-effectiveness of male circumcisionFair distribution of the available scarce resources is a very important factor in adopting health care policies and legislations. Several studies evaluated the cost-effectiveness of male circumcision within different settings. A large systematic review of 5 cost-effectiveness studies showed male circumcision to be a very cost-effective intervention in the prevention of HIV. The reported cost per HIV infection averted ranged from US$174 to US$2808.29 Infant male circumcision is more economically attractive that adolescent and adult male circumcision. The direct cost of adolescent and adult circumcision is 4 times the direct cost of neonatal circumcision. In addition the overall direct and indirect cost effectiveness of infant male circumcision programs are much more attractive than that of adolescent and adult circumcision mainly due to the lower direct cost of the procedure, fewer complications, and faster recovery.30 The overall cost of post-neonatal circumcision was estimated to be 10 times more than that of neonatal circumcision.31 In the event that male circumcision rates were to decrease to 10% in the United State the additional costs to be added to the health care system over 10 years would exceed $4.4 billion.32DiscussionBased on an extensive review of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Task Force on Circumcision, which included members from the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded that the current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, and the benefits of newborn male circumcision justify access to this procedure for those families who choose it.33 The analysis of the AAP included the literature published before 2012. Over the last 3 years, more research was published supporting the AAP taskforce recommendations. Some of these publications were referred to in previously mentioned analysis of the benefits and harms of male circumcision. Other international health authorities supported the practice of infant male circumcision. The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) recommend infant male circumcision as an important element of HIV prevention.34Law and ethics of infant male circumcisionCommon law as in indicated in SS v Secretary of State for the Home Department affirmed that circumcision could be carried out without violating the child’s rights if it was carried out in the context of loving family relationships and was supported by both parents.35 The court in Re U (A child) emphasized that the 2 parents jointly can exercise parental responsibility to arrange the ritual circumcision of their male child.36 Common law considered circumcision lawful despite the fact that it involves violation of bodily integrity as indicated in R v Brown, where lord Templeman said “Surgery involves intentional violence resulting in actual or sometimes serious bodily harm but surgery is a lawful activity. Other activities carried on with consent by or on behalf of the injured person have been accepted as lawful notwithstanding that they involve actual bodily harm or may cause serious bodily harm. Ritual circumcision, tattooing, ear-piercing, and violent sports including boxing are lawful activities”.37 There is no single country in the world that bans infant male circumcision; such legislation will set a legal and ethical precedence. The only court to ban infant male circumcision was in Cologne in 2012, which resulted in a very strong reaction within Germany and all over the world. The District Court of Cologne held that the circumcision of a 4 year old Muslim boy was unlawful mainly because of the violation of bodily integrity and due to the lack of consent from the child. The doctor performing the circumcision was, however, acquitted because the court decided that he acted under an unavoidable mistake of the law due to the lack of unanimous opinion on this issue at the time.38 The Cologne court decision was criticized by legal and ethical experts within and outside Germany. Chancellor Angela Merkel warned that Germany would become a “laughing stock” for the rest of the world if it allowed any ban on the circumcision of boys to stand. A few months later Germany’s parliament approved a resolution that called on Berlin to create legislation that would ensure that circumcision of boys remain legal in the country.39 Ultimately, Germany’s parliament passed a law allowing infant male circumcision.40In UK, the Children Act 1989 (and Children Act 2004) gives parents various parental responsibilities in regards to their children. One of these responsibilities is the responsibility to safeguard and promote the child’s health, development, and welfare. The Children Act 1989 requires that child welfare be the paramount consideration. According to this Act, parents also have the right to act as the child’s legal representative. These responsibilities and rights give parents, (or the one with parental responsibility), the right to consent to medical treatment on behalf of their infant.41,42 The best interest of infants is a very important test and pre-requisite for legitimacy of medical interventions in infants.43 Best interest includes the physical and mental health and emotional well-being of the child.44 Medical bodies within UK including the National Health Services (NHS), and the British Medical Association (BMA) encourage parents and health care professionals to consider the best interest of children as part of the consent of any medical treatment provided for minors.45,46 The BMA issued an ethical and legal guidance for physicians, which requires both parents to consent to infant male circumcision.47 As indicated previously, multiple systematic reviews with comprehensive review of the literature have consistently showed infant male circumcision to have multiple significant benefits compared with the harms associated with it. In addition, the important cultural and religious values linked to infant male circumcision add to the mental and emotional well-being of the child. Banning infant male circumcision will deprive parents from promoting their children health and welfare, which is a serious violation of the Children Act 1989.41At the international level the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child Article 14, 20, and 30 give parents the rights to teach their children regarding their religious and cultural beliefs and practices.48 Furthermore, according to article 4 of the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief “The parents or, as the case may be, the legal guardians of the child have the right to organize the life within the family in accordance with their religion or belief and bearing in mind the moral education in which they believe the child should be brought up”.49 Logically we cannot assume that infant male circumcision is excluded from these international agreements as theses conventions and declarations were signed by several countries, which practice infant male circumcision as part of their religious and cultural beliefs. Criminalizing infant male circumcision will violate these international agreements recognized by UK. In addition, Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) supports the right to respect private and family life. Based on the consistent evidence, which shows infant male circumcision to promote health, banning infant male circumcision arguably violates Article 8 of the ECHR. Furthermore, Article 9 of ECHR supports freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Depriving parents from consenting to circumcision of their children is a violation of their rights to manifest their religious beliefs guaranteed by article 9 of the ECHR.50 Common law supported the view that circumcision does not infringe the ECHR as indicated in SS v Secretary of State for the Home Department.35Infant male circumcision fulfills the principle of beneficence based on the established benefits of circumcision. The harms associated with infant male circumcisions compared with the significant benefits associated with it make infant male circumcision meet the non-maleficence principle. The benefits of infant male circumcision by far outweigh its harms, which make it in the best interest of the infant. Infant male circumcision will result in health maximization of the overall public health because the benefits of infant male circumcision are not limited to the circumcised individual but it expands to cover the health, economy, social, and cultural aspects of the community. Infant male circumcision is cost-effective, prevents diseases, and allows fair and just distribution of resources. These facts make infant male circumcision an ethically acceptable practice. Infant male circumcision should continue to be allowed in virtue of its proven wide spectrum benefits. To ban the use of an intervention with a potentially substantial beneficial physical, psychosocial, and public health effect violates the basic principles of virtue ethics. The wide and significant benefits of infant male circumcision compared with its harms would justify circumcision from a consequentialist ethical view. On the other hand, there are several serious catastrophic consequences of banning infant male circumcision, which represent deeply-held religious beliefs cultural customs and social norms. Such a ban may drive the practice underground, which could be associated with higher risks of adverse events and serious medical consequences for infants.Opponents of infant male circumcision raised several important arguments against the practice. One of these arguments is the suggestion that circumcision can be delayed so that the boy can make his own decision and exercise autonomy and self-determination when he gets older as a Gillick competent child (namely, a child who is 16 years or younger, and who is able to consent to his/her own medical treatment without the need for parental permission or knowledge, per English law” or as an adult. This argument does not consider the fact that conducting circumcision during infancy is crucial to maximize a wide range of medical benefits. The benefits of infant male circumcision start early after the procedure and continue through life. As indicated previously, these benefits include the early prevention of UTIs, and inflammatory foreskin conditions. Infant’s circumcision will ensure protection against multiple sexually transmitted diseases in case they became sexually active early in their adolescence. In addition, circumcision during infancy caries much lower risks of complications than circumcision during adolescent age or later, which make circumcision in the best interest of the infant. Furthermore, circumcision during infancy is by far more cost-effective than circumcision performed later in life. Adult and adolescent circumcision is disruptive to the work and education of the individual, it requires more time for recovery, causes loss of privacy and absenteeism from sexual activities. Based on these facts legally and ethically parents can consent to infant circumcision because it is in the best interest of their infant.Violation of the bodily integrity of the infant is another important argument against infant male circumcision. The general legal interest in bodily integrity was first affirmed in Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital. Judge Cardozo affirmed that “Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body”.51 The argument that circumcision violates the child’s rights to bodily integrity does not consider the fact that infant’s right to bodily integrity can be breached in the best interest of the infant, which makes vaccination tonsillectomy and other medical and surgical interventions permissible. Infant male circumcision is in the best interest of infants as shown in the review of the medical benefits which outweighs its harms. The additional important cultural and religious impacts of infant male circumcision in certain cultures add to the mental and psychological well-being and integrity of the individual within his own community.Finally, a large benefit-risk analysis evaluating the risk-benefit ratio of infant male circumcision revealed that benefits exceed risks by at least 100 to 1 over the lifetime. This benefit risk ratio was similar to that of immunization.52 This makes infant male circumcision in the best interest and welfare of the infant. In English law The Children Act 198941 gives child welfare the paramount consideration. In addition common law gives children best interest priority over children autonomy, self-determination, and body integrity as indicated in F v F.53In conclusion, infant male circumcision should continue to be internationally as long as it is approved by both parents, and performed by individuals with appropriate surgical skills in facilities that can provide appropriate sterilization, wound care, and anesthesia. Under these conditions, the harms associated with infant male circumcision are rare. Infant male circumcision is justified legally and ethically. It is in the best interest of the infant from the physical, mental, and cultural aspect. Its benefits outweigh its harms. Banning infant male circumcision will deprive parents from their rights to ensure the welfare of their children, which is paramount. Such a ban will deprive families from their rights to practice their religious and cultural beliefs. Prohibiting male infant circumcision will violate several ethical principles including beneficence and justice and will result in serious catastrophic consequences.AcknowledgmentThe authors would like to thank Dr. Gerard Porter, Lecturer in Medical Law & Eithics, School of Law, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom for his help as Course Director of the Medical Law & Ethics Program.FootnotesDisclosure. Authors have no conflict of interest, and the work was not supported or funded by any drug company.Article informationSaudi Med J. 2016 Sep; 37(9): 941–947.doi: 10.15537/smj.2016.9.14519PMCID: PMC5039612Abdullah Alkhenizan, FCFP, MSc and Kossay Elabd, MRCGPFrom the Department of Family Medicine and Polyclinic, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi ArabiaAddress correspondence and reprint request to: Dr. Abdullah Alkhenizan, Department of Family Medicine and Polyclinic, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. E-mail: moc.liamtoh@nazinehklaReceived 2016 Feb 4; Accepted 2016 Jun 19.Copyright : © Saudi Medical JournalThis is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.Articles from Saudi Medical Journal are provided here courtesy of Saudi Medical JournalReferences1. Oxford University Press. Oxford English Dictionary. Available from: circumcise - definition of circumcise in English | Oxford Dictionaries .2. Totaro A, Volpe A, Racioppi M, Pinto F, Sacco E, Bassi PF. [Circumcision: history, religion and law] Urologia. 2011;78:1–9. aItalian. [PubMed]3. The Torah - The Pentateuch. Bereishit. Genesis. (Chapter 17)4. Sahih Al-Bukhari. Vol. 6. Riyadh (KSA): Al-Salfiyya printing; 2010. p. 388.5. WHO/UNAIDS. Male circumcision: Global trends and determinants of prevalence, safety and acceptability. [Accessed 2014 December 20]. Available from: http://www.malecircumcision.org/media/documents/MC_Global_Trends_Determinants.pdf .6. Dave SS, Fenton KA, Mercer CH, Erens B, Wellings K, Johnson AM. Male circumcision in Britain: findings from a national probability sample survey. Sex Trans Infect. 2003;79:499–500. [PMC free article] [PubMed]7. Malone P, Steinbrecher H. Medical aspects of male circumcision. Brit Med J. 2007;335:1206–1209. [PMC free article] [PubMed]8. Merlin T, Weston A, Tooher R. Extending an evidence hierarchy to include topics other than treatment: revising the Australian ‘levels of evidence’ BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9:34. [PMC free article] [PubMed]9. Singh-Grewal D, Macdessi J, Craig J. Circumcision for the prevention of urinary tract infection in boys: a systematic review of randomised trials and observational studies. Arch Dis Child. 2005;90:853–858. [PMC free article] [PubMed]10. Zorc JJ, Kiddoo DA, Shaw KN. Diagnosis and management of pediatric urinary tract infections. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2005;18:417–422. [PMC free article] [PubMed]11. Lei JH, Liu LR, Wei Q, Yan SB, Yang L, Song TR, et al. Circumcision Status and Risk of HIV Acquisition during Heterosexual Intercourse for Both Males and Females: A Meta-Analysis. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0125436. [PMC free article] [PubMed]12. Larke NL, Thomas SL, dos Santos Silva I, Weiss HA. Male circumcision and penile cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Causes Control. 2011;22:1097–1110. [PMC free article] [PubMed]13. Albero G, Castellsagué X, Giuliano AR, Bosch FX. Male Circumcision and Genital Human Papillomavirus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sex Transm Dis. 2012;39:104–113. [PubMed]14. Berger RE, Lee JC. Genital warts. In: Walsh PC, Retik AB, Vaughan ED Jr, Wein AJ, editors. Campbell’s Urology. 8th ed. Philadelphia (PA): WB Saunders; 2002. p. 685.15. Human papillomavirus and urological tumours: II. Role in bladder, prostate, renal and testicular cancer. BJU Int. 2000;85:211–217. [PubMed]16. CastellsaguéX Bosch FX, Muñoz N, Meijer CJ, Shah KV, de Sanjose S, et al. Male circumcision, penile human papillomavirus infection, and cervical cancer in female partners. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:1105–1112. [PubMed]17. Bosch FX, Manos MM, Muñoz N, Sherman M, Jansen AM, Peto J, et al. Prevalence of human papillomavirus in cervical cancer: a worldwide perspective. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1995;87:796–802. [PubMed]18. Morris BJ, Waskett JH, Banerjee J, Wamai RG, Tobian AA, Gray RH, et al. A ‘snip’in time: what is the best age to circumcise? BMC Pediatr. 2012;12:20. [PMC free article] [PubMed]19. UN resources on male circumcision for HIV prevention. Male circumcision policy, practices and services in Eastern Cape Province of South Africa: a case study. 2008. Available from: http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/malecircumcision/MC_inventory.pdf .20. Yavuz M, Demir T, Doğangün B. [The effect of circumcision on the mental health of children: a review] Turk Psikiyatri Derg. 2012;23:63–70. Turkish. [PubMed]21. Tian Y, Liu W, Wang JZ, Wazir R, Yue X, Wang KJ. Effects of circumcision on male sexual functions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Asian J Androl. 2013;15:662–666. [PMC free article] [PubMed]22. Weiss HA, Larke N, Halperin D, Schenker I. Complications of circumcision in male neonates, infants and children: A systematic review. BMC Urol. 2010;10:2. [PMC free article] [PubMed]23. El Bcheraoui C, Zhang X, Cooper CS, Rose CE, Kilmarx PH, Chen RT. Rates of adverse events associated with male circumcision in U.S. medical settings, 2001 to 2010. JAMA Pediatr. 2014;168:625–634. [PMC free article] [PubMed]24. Brady-Fryer B, Wiebe N, Lander JA. Pain relief for neonatal circumcision. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(4):CD004217. [PubMed]25. Cyna AM, Middleton P. Caudal epidural block versus other methods of postoperative pain relief for circumcision in boys. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;(4):CD003005. [PubMed]26. Arya M, Li R, Pegler K, Sangar V, Kelly JD, Minhas S, et al. Long-term trends in incidence, survival and mortality of primary penile cancer in England. Cancer Causes Control. 2013;24:2169–2176. [PubMed]27. Gairdner D. The fate of the foreskin, a study of circumcision. Br Med J. 1949;2:1433–1437. [PMC free article] [PubMed]28. Morris BJ, Gray RH, Castellsague X, Bosch FX, Halperin DT, Waskett JH, et al. The Strong Protective Effect of Circumcision against Cancer of the Penis. Adv Urol. 2011;2011:812368. [PMC free article] [PubMed]29. Uthman OA, Popoola TA, Uthman MM, Aremu O. Economic evaluations of adult male circumcision for prevention of heterosexual acquisition of HIV in men in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2010;5:e9628. [PMC free article] [PubMed]30. Binagwaho A, Pegurri E, Muita J, Bertozzi S. Male circumcision at different ages in Rwanda: a cost-effectiveness study. PLoS Med. 2010;7:e1000211. [PMC free article] [PubMed]31. Schoen EJ, Colby CJ, To TT. Cost analysis of neonatal circumcision in a large health maintenance organization. J Urol. 2006;175:1111–1115. [PubMed]32. Kacker S, Frick KD, Gaydos CA, Tobian AA. Costs and effectiveness of neonatal male circumcision. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2012;166:910–918. [PMC free article] [PubMed]33. American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision. Male circumcision. Pediatrics. 2012;130:e756–e785. [PubMed]34. Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) (2012) Global Report: UNAIDS Report on the Global AIDS Epidemic. Geneva (CH): UNAIDS; 2012. Available from: http://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/media_asset/20121120_UNAIDS_Global_Report_2012_with_annexes_en_1.pdf .35. Gardner C. SS (Malaysia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: [2013] EWCA 888: Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division): Moore-Bick, Rimer, and Underhill LJJ: 18 July 2013. Oxford Journal of Law and Religion. 2013;3:173–173.36. Re U (A child) (Court of Appeal, 25th November 199937. R v Brown [1993] 2 All ER 7538. Landgericht Cologne Judgment. 7 May 2012 - Docket no. 151 Ns 169/11. Available from: https://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/ilm/CircumcisionJudgmentLGCologne7May20121.pdf .39. Legislation to Legalize Circumcision. Available from: Support for Religious Traditions: Politicians Welcome German Circumcision Motion - SPIEGEL ONLINE - International .40. 3 UF 133/13. Oberlandesgericht Hamm / Higher Regional Court of Hamm, family branch, appellate division. §1631 d BGB (German Civil Code;circumcision of boys) 2013. Available from: 3 UF 133/13 | CRIN .41. Children Act 1989. Legislation.gov.uk. Available from: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/41 .42. Children Act 2004. Legislation.gov.uk. Available from: Children Act 2004 .43. S v S; W v Official Solicitor [1970] 3 All ER 10744. Children Act 2004. Available from: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/31/pdfs/ukpga_20040031_en.pdf .45. British Medical Association. Parental responsibility: Guidance from the Ethics Department 2008. Available from: https://www.bma.org.uk/-/media/files/pdfs/practical%20advice%20at%20work/ethics/parentalresponsibility.pdf .46. Consent - What You Have a Right to Expect: A Guide for Parents 2001. Available from: http://www.nhs.uk/nhsengland/aboutnhsservices/documents/consent_%20aguideforparentsdh_4117353.pdf .47. British Medical Association. The law and ethics of male circumcision: guidance for doctors. J Med Ethics. 2004;30:259–263. [PMC free article] [PubMed]48. The United Nations Children’s Emergency Fund. United Nations Treaty Collection. Convention on the Rights of the Child. Available from: Convention on the Rights of the Child49. The United Nations. Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. 1981. Available from: A/RES/36/55. Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief .50. The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) 1950. Available from: http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf .51. Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, 211 N.Y. 125, 129, 105 N.E. 92, 93 (N.Y 1914)52. Morris BJ, Bailis SA, Wiswell TE. Circumcision rates in the United States: rising or falling? What effect might the new affirmative pediatric policy statement have? Mayo Clin Proc. 2014;89:677–686. [PubMed]53. F v F [2013] EWHC 2683 Fam) (05 September 2013)