|
Home > Correspondence > Child Protection Agencies
Correspondent: CANADIAN COALITION April 19, 1998 Fernande Meilleur
Dear Ms Meilleur I understand that the Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children has as one of its tasks the monitoring of compliance with international instruments governing treatment of children. Therefore I would like to ask whether or not a particular medical study carried out recently in Edmonton conformed to the principles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The study in question compared several different methods of pain control for infant male circumcision. It was performed under the auspices of the University of Alberta and was supported by a grant from the National Health Research Development Programs. I enclose a 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 a letter which Drs Somerville and Alwin wrote 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, like forced sterilization or female genital mutilation, 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 the 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. I look to your guidance on whether the medical research in question may have indeed contravened the principles of relevant international instruments in the field of human rights. I am providing a copy of my letter to Mr John Antonopoulos, president of an educational organization dedicated to disseminating information about circumcision. Sincerely
Awaiting reply.
^Top |