R. Gary McCuaig, Q.C.
Chief Crown Prosecutor
Edmonton, Alberta

Dear Mr. McCuaig:

I would like to draw attention to an issue that has attracted little public notice, at least until recently. That issue is infant male circumcision. I feel it is my duty to raise questions about a medical study on this subject carried out a couple of years ago at the University of Alberta.

In 1997, researchers from the Faculties of Medicine and Nursing, University of Alberta, and the Divisions of Research Administration and Pharmacy, University of Alberta Hospitals, undertook to measure pain responses in 52 healthy, full-term male infants undergoing circumcision. As part of this medical experiment, male infants were severely traumatized, in some cases to the point of danger. One infant was reported to have experienced such distress that he stopped breathing for more than 25 seconds. Another cried so hard that he choked on his own vomit.

The most disturbing aspect of all this is that it did not take place in response to any medical need. In their final report to Health Canada, the researchers themselves admitted that neonatal circumcision was not medically necessary. They said they performed the circumcisions solely because they felt compelled to accommodate the wishes of the children’s parents.

Respect for the physical integrity of persons—including infants—is a cornerstone of our legal system. It is my understanding that any person who wounds another person must be able to show justification. Though the wounding that occurred at the University of Alberta was done at the hands of medical practitioners in a medical setting, it is clear that medical justification was not present.

Does some other justification exist for surgically wounding a child?

Stripped of its medical façade, non-religious infant male circumcision is little more than a gratuitous act of violence perpetrated by a physician against a child. Given the grave nature of the injuries reported to have been suffered by infants at the University of Alberta, and the apparent lack of justification for inflicting those injuries, I would like to know if the Crown had considered laying charges against the individuals responsible.

I have no doubt that charges would have been laid if surgical interventions of comparable invasiveness and severity had been undertaken without medical justification on the genitals of 52 girls.

I enclose the following background information:

• A copy of the abstract published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
• An anatomical study documenting the unique nature of the foreskin and its importance for normal copulatory behaviour (Cold CJ, Taylor JR. The Prepuce. British Journal of Urology (1999), 83, Suppl. 1, 34-44). Note the following on page 41: “Sexual function — the prepuce is primary, erogenous tissue necessary for normal sexual function.”
• Two letters, dated November 10, 1997 and January 28, 1998, from Dr. Margaret Somerville, Founding Director of the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law, to Dr. Robin Walker, a member of the Fetus and Newborn Committee of the Canadian Paediatric Society and co-author of the society’s 1996 position statement on neonatal circumcision (enclosed with Dr. Somerville’s permission).

Sincerely,
 
[signed]
 
D ennis H arrison

encl.

Copies to:

• Dr. Roderick Fraser, President and Vice-Chancellor, University of Alberta
• Hon. Jon Havelock, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Alberta
• Hon. Halvar Jonson, Minister of Health, Province of Alberta
• Hon. Anne McLellan, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
• Dr. Larry Ohlhauser, President, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta
• Mr. Bob Rechner, Children’s Advocate, Province of Alberta
• Dr. Margaret Somerville, Founding Director, McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law
• Dr. D. Lorne Tyrrell, Dean, Faculty of Medicine and Oral Health Sciences, University of Alberta
• Dr. John R. Williams, Director of Ethics, Canadian Medical Association
• Dr. Marilynn J. Wood, Dean, Faculty of Nursing, University of Alberta

Dear Sir:

Re: Infant Male Circumcision

I have received your letter of May 21, 1999.

Any allegation of criminal conduct must first be investigated by the appropriate police agency. We do not lay charges on our own without a police investigation.

Yours truly,
 
[signed]
 
R. G. McCuaig, QC
Chief Crown Prosecutor

Top of page