A dangerous muddying of the waters?: The ‘significant harm’ of Re B and G (children) (care proceedings) [2015]

Med Law Rev first published online June 7, 2016  doi:10.1093/medlaw/fwv039
Author: Ruari D. Mcalister
“The academic debate rages on as to whether male circumcision really is in the best interests of the child or if it constitutes an abusive practice. This commentary discusses the recent case of Re B and G (children) (care proceedings) [2015] EWFC 3, delivered by the current President of the Family Division of the High court, Sir James Munby. Two key issues are raised by this judgment. First, that President Munby’s obiter comments constitute an attack on the legally accepted act of male circumcision by suggesting a similar nature between the illegal act of female genital mutilation (FGM) and that of male circumcision as well as the suggestion that male circumcision can be classed as a significant harm. Second, that this case reflects the woefully unprepared condition of the UK medical profession in dealing with FGM.”
Find abstract here.