Dear Dr. Etchells:
I am writing in regard to a letter in the Canadian Medical Association Journal that you co-authored in 1997 with Messrs. Sharpe and Walsh.1 In your letter you and your associates state that "there are no established limits to parental authority in regard to consent to male circumcision," implying that infant male circumcision does not present ethical or legal difficulties.
The views expressed in your letter seem to go contrary to those of Dr. Margaret Somerville, a professor in the faculties of law and medicine at McGill University and the founding director of the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law. Dr. Somerville holds that all woundings are criminal assault unless they can be justified, and that a therapeutic aim is the only possible justification for wounding a person unable to consent for himself. It follows that in the absence of medical need, infant male circumcision is criminal assault.
Is your position on infant male circumcision the same today as it was three years ago? I would be interested in hearing your professional opinion on this matter, should you care to give it. I have been researching circumcision for about two and one-half years. My perspective is that of a concerned citizen, rather than a professional.
Sincerely,
[signed]
D ennis H arrison
| 1 |
Etchells E, Sharpe G, Walsh P. Consent for circumcision. CMAJ 1997;156:18.
|
April 10, 2000
Dear Mr. H arrison,
Thank you for your
letter of April 3, 2000 regarding the issue of infant male circumcision.
I am an adult internal medicine specialist, so I do not have a professional opinion on this matter.
In the
letter which I co-authored in 1997, I stated "there are no established limits to parental authority in regard to consent to male circumcision." At that time there were no established legal or professional limitations on infant male circumcision.
Since this is not an area of ongoing interest, I cannot comment on whether there have been legal or professional developments since that time.
Good luck with your research.