|
Home > Correspondence > Child Protection Agencies
Correspondent: B.C. DIRECTOR OF CHILD PROTECTION April 6, 2000 Dear Mr. H arrison: Re: Infant Male Circumcision Thank you for your letter of March 17, 2000 regarding the ethical and legal issues surrounding infant male circumcision. I appreciate that you have spent considerable time and effort in researching this topic. I hope that my responses will be of assistance to you. Child abuse is defined in slightly different ways by different child protection statutes, child welfare agencies, service providers and the community. Many legislated definitions have been extended in recent years to include neglect and the infliction of emotional harm. The B.C. Handbook for Action on Child Abuse and Neglect, a document prepared for service providers who work with children and families by the Ministry for Children and Families in consultation with other ministries and service providers, defines physical abuse as follows: A deliberate, non-accidental physical assault or action by an adult or significantly older or more powerful child that results or is likely to result in physical harm to a child. It includes the use of unreasonable force to discipline a child or to prevent a child from harming him/herself or others. The injuries sustained by the child may vary in severity and range from minor bruising, burns, welts or bite marks to major to major fractures of the bones or skull, and, in its most extreme form, the death of a child. Physical assault is a crime.The Criminal Code of Canada was amended in 1997 to clarify that female genital mutilation is a crime. Section 268 of the Criminal Code provides as follows:
According to the laws of Canada and the provinces, infant male circumcision is generally a matter to be decided and dealt with by a parent and his or her physician. In some circumstances, infant male circumcision would constitute child abuse. In making a decision about whether or not it constituted child abuse, child protection social workers consult with medical professionals, including physicians. To the best of my knowledge, prosecutions for female genital mutilation have not occurred in B.C. Similarly, I am not aware of any removals of children from their homes for reasons relating to female genital mutilation. Please contact me if you have any further questions or concerns. Sincerely,
April 19, 2000 Dear Mr. Dawson, Thank you for your thoughtful letter of April 6th, in response to my correspondence of March 17 regarding infant male circumcision. I'd like to present further information on this subject that may be of interest to you. I enclose copies of two recent news items from Sweden indicating the direction in which that country is heading as regards circumcision of healthy boys. Earlier today I heard a discussion on the radio regarding the implementation of laws against child pornography. I learned that a surprising number of parents have been charged with criminal offences for taking nude pictures of their own children. Apparently retail outlets that process film are reporting all images of naked children to the police, since failing to do so would put the retail outlet itself at legal risk. We seem concerned about children's welfare in some contexts, but not in others. The officials to whom I have written on the subject of circumcision tend to respond with "it's not an issue" or "it's not my department," despite warnings from top medical ethicists that circumcision of children for non-medical reasons is both unethical and illegal. There is a perception that since Canadian doctors perform infant male circumcision, it must be legal. However, Dr. Margaret Somerville, professor in the faculties of law and medicine at McGill University, founding director of the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law, and a Fellow of the Royal Society, believes that routine circumcision of baby boys contravenes current provisions of the Criminal Code. The basis of her analysis is that all woundings are criminal assault unless they can be justified, and medical necessity is the only justification for wounding a child. It follows that if infant male circumcision is not medically required, then it is criminal assault. As you note in your letter, female genital mutilation (FGM) is expressly prohibited under recent amendments to s. 268 of the Criminal Code. However, it seems that FGM can be adequately addressed using other provisions of the Code. As evidence of this, I enclose a copy of an internal memo from the Ontario Solicitor General's Office distributed in 1994 to all chiefs of police in Ontario. According to the memo, "existing sections of the Criminal Code concerning sexual assault and wounding can be used to deal with the problem." If the principle underlying the prohibition of FGM is that children must be protected from unnecessary sexual surgery, then I can't help wondering why this principle is not applied in the case of boys. I believe that under the law, boys have the same right as girls to be free of unnecessary and unadvised surgery. I enclose the following:
Sincerely,
September 7, 2002 David Young
Dear Mr. Young: According to news reports, a Penticton infant died at B.C. Children's Hospital in Vancouver on August 22nd as a result of complications from circumcision. The case is being investigated by the regional coroner's office. A enclose a copy of one of the news reports. The unexpected death of an infant is of course deeply troubling to everyone, and I would appreciate it if you could tell me whether or not you will be doing anything with respect to this matter in your capacity as Director of Child Protection.
October 2, 2002 Dear D ennis H arrison: I am writing in response to your letter of September 7, 2002, regarding the death of a Penticton infant on August 22, 2002. The Minister has appointed a Director, as defined under the Child, Family and Community Service Act, in each region of the province. This designation by the Minister makes the Director the final authority for child protection, guardianship and adoption services and practice in the region. The Director for the Interior Region is Rick Childerhose and I have forwarded your letter to him for his consideration. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.
Director, Child, Family and Community Service Act cc: Rick Childerhose
October 24, 2002 Dear D ennis H arrison, I have received your letter of September 7, 2002, written to David Young, regarding the death of a Penticton infant. As your letter and the newspaper article notes, this tragic death occurred as a result of a medical procedure. The death of a child under these circumstances is not within the jurisdiction of the Ministry for Child and Family Development. The Child, Family and Community Service Act of British Columbia does not authorize my ministry to investigate such children's deaths. This is instead the jurisdiction of the British Columbia Coroner under the Coroner's Act. The news article you sent along with your letter indicates that the Coroner's Office is currently conducting an investigation into this child's death. I trust this will clarify for you who have the mandate to deal with these incidents. Yours truly,
pc: David Young, Assistant Deputy Minister, Child and Family Development Division
^Top |