Home  >  Correspondence  >  Child Protection Agencies

Dear (name of person heading the agency):

I am writing in regard to an issue that has become a matter of increasing public concern in recent years: infant male circumcision. I have been researching this subject for some time, and I seek your assistance in clarifying a number of points.

To place this issue in context, I would like to present a brief summary of relevant information:

1. In 1996 the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) issued a policy statement recommending that "circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed." This policy statement reaffirmed earlier statements issued by the CPS in 1975, 1982, and 1989. No national medical organization in the world currently advocates neonatal circumcision as a routine measure. Clearly there is now a high level of consensus in the medical community that neonatal circumcision is not medically justified.
    
2. Leading Canadian ethicists such as Dr. Margaret Somerville (Founding Director of the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law) and Dr. Eike-Henner Kluge (Chair, Department of Philosophy, University of Victoria, and former Director of Ethics and Legal Affairs at the Canadian Medical Association) have stated that circumcision of children presents serious ethical difficulties if the operation is not medically required.
    
3. Except in a medical emergency or with statutory authorization, no one can intrude on another person's body without that person's consent. Since children are not legally capable of giving consent, "substituted consent" is given on their behalf by parents or, if necessary, by a court. However, a 1986 Supreme Court of Canada decision called Re Eve (31 D.L.R. 4th 1) created an important precedent in Canadian law which limits parents' and courts' abilities to give medical consent on behalf of children. In Re Eve, the court dismissed an application by a mother for the authority to have her retarded daughter sterilized. The court found that the proposed sterilization was not necessary for the daughter's mental or physical health. The reasoning of this case can be extended beyond the specific issue of sterilization to other analogous situations. If circumcision is not necessary for a baby's mental or physical health, then it is arguable (on the basis of Re Eve) that a parent and/or court cannot legally give the consent necessary to perform it.
    
4. The courts have placed limits on the ability of parents to make decisions regarding medical treatment of their children, even when the parents are motivated by deep-felt religious beliefs. In M.(R.E.D.) v. Alberta (Director, Child Welfare Act) (1986), 32 D.L.R. (4th) 394, 4 R.F.L. (3d) 363, [1987] 1 W.W.R. 327, 47 Alta. L.R. (2d) 380, 74 A.R. 23, the presiding Justice ruled:
   
   

   ...that with regard to s. 7 of the Charter, the Act did not deprive the child S of the right to life: it protected that right. Assuming that the parents had a right under the same Charter provision to be free from state intervention, there had to be a balancing of protected but competing rights. The child's right to life took precedence over any competing right of the parents. The right to freedom of religion guaranteed by s. 2 of the Charter was not without qualification, despite its fundamental nature.

In light of the above information, I seek your professional opinion on the following issues:

1. Do parents have the legal authority to consent to invasive surgical procedures being performed on their children for non-medical reasons?
    
2. Does circumcision of a child for non-medical reasons violate the child's right to physical integrity as guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
    
3. What is the generally accepted definition of child abuse?
    
4. Do the different forms of female genital mutilation (FGM) constitute child abuse? If so, what characteristics of the practice result in it being classified as child abuse?
    
5. Does infant male circumcision constitute child abuse? If so, what characteristics of the practice result in it being classified as child abuse?
    
6. If infant male circumcision does not constitute child abuse why does it not meet the definition as set out in question 3?
    
7. Have there been any prosecutions for FGM within your jurisdiction?
    
8. Has any child within your jurisdiction ever been apprehended for reasons related to FGM?
    
9. Please provide any other information, references, readings, etc. that you believe may help me in researching this topic.

Please contact me at [telephone number] if you require further information or would like to speak to me about this request.

Yours sincerely,
 
[signed]
 
_________________