|
Home > Correspondence > Medical Societies
Correspondent: ONTARIO MEDICAL ASSOCIATION August 14, 1998 Dr. John Gray, President
Dear Dr. Gray: RE: INFANT CIRCUMCISION I've seen statements made in the press recently by the chair of the pædiatrics section, Dr. Roland Beaulieu, and would like to comment. In an article on infant circumcision that appeared in the Toronto Sun on July 5, 1998, Dr. Beaulieu stated "...we follow the wishes of the family" and "...we often support the parents in their decisions." The primary responsibility for raising children undoubtedly falls on the shoulders of the parents. However, decisions to undertake surgical interventions on minors cannot be made today without taking into account the rights of children and the duties of physicians. No right is held more sacred under the common law than the right of every person to his own body. It seems to me that physicians have a professional duty to respect this basic human right. Since neonatal circumcision is a wounding of a child that is not performed in response to any medical need, its lawfulness is open to doubt. Dr. Margaret Somerville, professor in the faculties of law and medicine at McGill University's Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law, and one of Canada's top medical ethicists, has expressed the view that neonatal circumcision contravenes current provisions of the Criminal Code. Dr. Neville Turner, a professor of law at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia has warned that doctors and nurses who rely on the consent of parents to perform neonatal circumcision could be civilly and criminally liable. I was surprised to learn that the Ontario Medical Association "often supports" decisions to undertake surgical interventions whose legality has been called into question by experts. The practice of forced non-therapeutic circumcision also appears to violate the provisions of international human rights instruments to which Canada is a State Party. For instance, Article 24 (3) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by the Government of Canada on December 11, 1991, provides that States Parties shall take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children.What measures is the Ontario Medical Association taking, if any, to abolish a practice as clearly prejudicial to the health of children as the unnecessary amputation of normal anatomy? When circumcision is not medically necessary, the harms associated with it are not outweighed by compensating benefits. Circumcision can cause a multitude of complications ranging from hæmorrhage and infection to total ablation of the penis and death. Even a properly done circumcision results in permanent loss of a unique anatomical structure performing specific functions. I'm providing a copy of my letter and enclosures to Attorneys for the Rights of the Child, a newly formed, non-profit, international network of attorneys dedicated to raising public awareness of the rights of male children to physical integrity and self-determination. As part of its work, this organization is investigating ways of making legal remedies available to circumcised males. The anger that some Canadian men feel as a result of having been circumcised in infancy was clearly portrayed on the CTV current affairs program W5, broadcast initially on October 21, 1997, and repeated on January 6, 1998. I'm uneasy at the prospect of growing old and feeble in a society where $200 tendered by a third party is sufficient incentive for some doctors to remove normal anatomy from healthy but physically weak persons who have been tied down. I look forward to the day the Ontario Medical Association, together with other medical organizations in the world, finally recognizes its obligation to protect the health and rights of vulnerable persons. Sincerely,
Enclosures: Copies to:
Sincerely,
^Top |