Home  >  Correspondence  >  Child Protection Agencies

Dear Mr. Sawkey:

I am responding to your letter of April 23, 2001 and your questions regarding the practice of male circumcision and female genital mutilation and how they are viewed in the context of child protection. Child abuse is defined in section 11 of The Child and Family Services Act. This section provides:

A child is in need of protection where:

A. as a result of action or omission by the child's parent:

i. the child has suffered or is likely to suffer physical harm;

ii. the child has suffered or is likely to suffer a serious impairment of mental or emotional functioning;

iii. the child has been or is likely to be exposed to harmful interaction for a sexual purpose, including involvement in prostitution and including that may amount to an offense within the meaning of the Criminal Code;

iv. medical, surgical or other recognized remedial care or treatment that is considered essential by a duly qualified medical practitioner has not been or is not likely to be provided to the child;

v. the child's development is likely to be seriously impaired by failure to remedy a mental, emotional or developmental condition; or

vi. the child has been exposed to domestic violence or severe domestic disharmony that is likely to result in physical or emotional harm to the child;

B. there is no adult person who is able and willing to provide for the child's needs, and physical or emotional harm to the child has occurred or is likely to occur:

Since the circumcision procedure is performed under the care of a physician, you may wish to inquire further with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan, at (306) 211-7355.

With respect to female genital mutilation, we are not aware of this practice occurring in Saskatchewan. If the department became aware of a medical procedure being conducted outside of a hospital by someone other than a qualified medical practitioner, the matter would be investigated. We are not aware of any prosecutions for this practice in Saskatchewan and are not aware of any children being apprehended for this reason.

Further information on the legislation and regulations referenced above may be accessed via your public library.

I trust this answers your questions.

Sincerely yours,
 
[signed]
 
Richard Hazel
Executive Director
Family and Youth Services
 

Dear Mr. Hazel:

Re: Infant male circumcision

Thank you for your letter of May 15th. I would like to comment on something you wrote and ask a further question.

You wrote that "under the Hospital Standards Regulations, section 55, the parent has the legal authority to consent to this medical procedure [circumcision]."

However, the Supreme Court has ruled that regulations pertaining to the management of hospitals cannot be used to define human rights. In a 1986 case called E. (Mrs.) v. Eve, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 388, which involved the proposed sterilization of a Prince Edward Island girl with a mental disability, the court ruled that the Hospital Management Regulations of P.E.I. (which are virtually identical to the Hospital Standards Regulations of Saskatchewan) were inapplicable. The court held that

the purpose of the regulations is to regulate the construction, management and operation of hospitals. They are not aimed at defining the rights of individuals as such ... For the purposes of managing the workings of the hospital, the regulations require that these consents be signed. They do not purport to regulate the validity of the consents; this is otherwise governed by law.

I would appreciate a response at your earliest convenience. Thank you for taking the time to consider my questions and respond to them.

Sincerely yours,
 
[signed]
 
John Sawkey

^Top