Confusion in the court!
Reader comment on: Oregon Supreme Court To Hear Debate On Circumcision
in response to reader comment: Consider the victim

Submitted by Georganne Chapin, Nov 8, 2007 11:47

The father (and it appears the court) is conflating circumcision as a religious rite with a parent's right to consent to medical treatment on behalf of a minor child. With regard to the former, circumcising a twelve-year old does not make him a Jew, any more than leaving him intact has any bearing on his religious identity or beliefs. With regard to the latter, the legal principles underlying proxy consent (e.g., consent to another's treatment) are quite stringent -- and are limited to medical emergencies or cases where the life or health of the patient is at stake. Boldt's son does not NEED to be circumcised to save his life or health. Therefore, his circumcision is either (a) a religious rite impelled by his own, not his father's, religious conversion, and probably not relevant until he is able to articulate it as an adult), or (b) an elective medical procedure, in which case the standard for proxy consent is not met. Either way, the court must rule that the boy be left intact.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.