March 22, 2005
Dr. Martin Girash, President and CEO
Mr. David M. Musyj
Vice-President, Medical Affairs, General Counsel
Windsor Regional Hospital
Dear Dr. Girash and Mr. Musyj:
I’m writing in connection with an article published on March 19th in the Windsor Star, dealing with circumcision practices at Windsor Regional Hospital.
I have been researching circumcision for several years—I consider it to be an important human rights issue. My letters on the subject have been published in a number of academic journals, including the Lancet, the New England Journal of Medicine, and the Journal of Law and Medicine.
Headlined “Circumcisions spark debate,” the Windsor Star article paints a picture of an exceptionally high rate of neonatal circumcision and a frequent absence of informed consent from caregivers. When asked why he chose to have his son circumcised, a new father is reported to have replied, “Why not?...We didn’t really look into the pros and cons.”
As you are aware, the Health Care Consent Act imposes a duty on health care professionals to ensure that consent to treatment is informed. Even more importantly, the Supreme Court ruled in E. (Mrs.) v. Eve [1986] 2 S.C.R. 388 that parents do not have the legal authority to consent to an irreversible surgical operation being performed on their child, unless the intervention is medically required.
For your information, I enclose copies of (a) a letter that I have sent to Dr. Rocco Gerace, Registrar of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, (b) a memo that was distributed to Saskatchewan physicians in 2002 by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan, and (c) a formal policy on infant male circumcision that was issued last year by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia.
Sincerely,
[signed]
D ennis H arrison
^Top