Correspondent:

HEALTH CANADA

I would like to raise questions in regard to a study that was supported by grant 6609-1824-60A from the National Health Research Development Programs. The study, carried out at two tertiary care hospitals in Edmonton, compared several different methods of pain control for infant male circumcision. I enclose an information package containing further details.

None of the 52 infants involved in the study required medical treatment, yet all underwent surgery to remove an erotogenic part of the reproductive system. The study was not halted until some infants in the placebo group had been traumatized to the point of danger. According to the researchers, the placebo group represented standard practice.

Similar research—conducted previously in Toronto—drew criticism from Dr Margaret Somerville, Founding Director of the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law, and Dr David Alwin. A copy of the letter they wrote jointly to the New England Journal of Medicine is included in the information package.

A child cannot be subjected to invasive surgery unless the surgery confers a medical benefit; the law seems clear on that point. The Canadian Paediatric Society concluded in 1996, after an exhaustive review of the literature, that neonatal circumcision confers no net medical benefit.

Hence it appears that neonatal circumcision cannot be legally performed.

The act of removing normal body parts without medical need and without the consent of the person undergoing the surgery also appears to breach provisions of international treaties to which Canada is a State Party. For instance, Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified by Canada in May, 1976, provides that

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.

Given the current shortfall in funding for medical research, and the precarious state of our health care system in general, I am wondering why NHRDP allocated scarce public resources to refine a surgical procedure that not only removes a specific erogenous zone to no particular advantage, but also seems to endanger children's health, flout the law of the land, and wink at international treaty obligations.

I would appreciate hearing your comments. I would also like to know the amount of the grant, if that information is available.

Sincerely,
 
[signed]
 
D ennis H arrison