|
Home > Correspondence > Human Rights Commissions
Correspondent: CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONS (Identical letter sent to Commission in each province by local resident)
Dear (name of Chief Commissioner): I am writing in regard to a disturbing practice that until recently has met with little public attention—namely, genital mutilation. Since the amputation of healthy human body parts generally has serious human rights implications, I would be interested in knowing how the (name of province) Human Rights Commission views this issue. The Ontario Human Rights Commission developed a policy on female genital mutilation (FGM) in 1996. This policy characterizes FGM as a violation of human rights. Among the key documents used in the formulation of the policy were international instruments that defend the rights of children and promote equality between the sexes. We Canadians have taken strong measures to protect girls and women from genital mutilation. In 1997, Parliament passed an amendment to the Criminal Code expressly prohibiting all forms of FGM, no matter how minor. This legislation was enacted in response to movements of refugees and immigrants to Canada from parts of the world where FGM is an established practice. It is becoming more and more apparent that routine circumcision of boys raises the same basic human rights issues as FGM. Two of our leading medical ethicists, Dr. Eike-Henner Kluge and Dr. Margaret Somerville, have warned that infant male circumcision presents serious ethical and legal difficulties. Dr. Kluge, a former Director of Ethics and Legal Affairs at the Canadian Medical Association, has characterized infant male circumcision as "non-consensual mutilation of a minor." Dr. Somerville, Founding Director of the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law, has likened infant male circumcision to criminal assault. Evidence suggests that except in rare cases when it is performed in response to a specific medical need, male circumcision confers no net medical benefit and may harm the person who undergoes it. The Canadian Paediatric Society concluded in 1996, after an exhaustive review of the medical literature, that any potential benefit from neonatal circumcision does not outweigh the surgical risks associated with performing the procedure. Paediatric organizations in other countries, including the United States, have come to similar conclusions. The foreskin is an integral, normal part of the external genitals. It forms the anatomical covering of the glans penis and clitoris. One recent medical study concluded that the inner surface of the male foreskin may be "an important component of the overall sensory mechanism of the human penis" (Taylor, J. et al. The prepuce: specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision. British Journal of Urology, 1996;77:291-5). It is clear that removing such anatomy from a healthy child raises important human rights issues. Relative degree of harm is not an appropriate criterion for distinguishing male circumcision from FGM. The milder forms of FGM are no more severe than male circumcision. In some traditions, female circumcision involves removing only the clitoral hood, while in other traditions, female circumcision involves nicking the genitals without removing any tissue whatsoever. Canadian law prohibits all forms of FGM, regardless of severity. If the milder forms of FGM cannot be excused on the grounds that they are less severe than male circumcision, then male circumcision cannot be excused on the grounds that it is less severe than the more extreme forms of FGM. Circumcision of boys for non-medical reasons is gender-specific discrimination—that is, boys are treated differently just because they are boys. Circumcision of girls for non-medical reasons is prohibited. The reasons commonly cited for male circumcision and female circumcision are identical: cleanliness, good appearance, conformity to societal values, preservation of cultural identity, potential health benefits. If these reasons are insufficient to justify circumcision of girls, they are insufficient to justify circumcision of boys. Dr. Nahid Toubia, a Sudanese physician and respected campaigner against FGM, writes: The unnecessary removal of a functioning body organ in the name of tradition, custom or any other non-disease related cause should never be acceptable to the health profession. All childhood circumcisions are violations of human rights, and a breach of the fundamental code of medical ethics... It is the moral duty of educated professionals to protect the health and rights of those with little or no social power to protect themselves. In light of the above information, I would appreciate answers to the following questions:
Please make your answers as specific as possible. Do not hesitate to contact me at (111) 555-1212 if you require clarification. I enclose the following background information:
Yours sincerely,
|