MEDICAL FRAUD and the criminal assault of boys
Prejudice Against Male Rights Including Circumcision
Since I became involved in my campaign against circumcision over twenty years ago, I came to realize that there is nothing in the world more difficult to eradicate than genital mutilation, and in North America we are battling male circumcision. It was easier to destroy the Berlin Wall and end Communism in Europe than it is to end circumcision. There is no other drive so powerful as the drive to mutilate another’s genitals. And the question is why?
In Canada and the USA, female genital mutilation (even minor forms of female circumcision) has been outlawed. In Canada FGM is outlawed and a criminal offence regardless of the age of the individual on whom it is performed. In the USA, females who have reached the age of consent can still undergo some form of genital mutilation. However, in Africa both male and female circumcision are still widely practiced.
The reasons for FGM in Africa are very similar reasons as the reasons for MGM in North America. The opponents of female circumcision in Africa as well as the opponents of male circumcision in North America, Europe, Australia and other free nations are met with the same type of opposition. The so-called advantages of circumcision are always being used to promote the practice and opponents are derided as insane lunatics. The question of the human rights of the individual on whom it is performed is seldom or never considered. It is the demand by those who perpetrate this practice on others which must be satisfied.
A number of years ago while principal of a high school, I was asked to meet with a dozen senior high school boys who wished to talk to me about a topic which was of great concern to them. I met with them hardly aware that they wished to discuss circumcision. Most of the boys were circumcised and were very angry and the unlawful intrusion upon their bodies. They felt that this was a gross violation of their rights, they cared very little about any so- called medical benefits and appealed to me to help end this dehumanizing practice.
I researched male circumcision quite thoroughly and could find no justification for it whatsoever. I eventually formed an organization and began to write letters condemning the practice. Initially my letters were printed in the USA and I received an overwhelming response of support from other individuals who concurred with me. A Jewish teenage boy phoned me and told me that even though his father was a physician who performed circumcisions, he too felt that they were a violation of human rights and informed me that he supported me in the cause.
A number of years ago I wrote to fifteen medical organizations and associations in Canada. I received a response from three who stated that they agreed with me. However, the Canadian Medical Association stated that they did not have funds to educate doctors in Canada who still circumcised. Amazingly they contributed $250 000 towards a fund to find the killer of an abortionist in Florida.
When I wrote letters to the Provincial College of Physicians and Surgeons, I basically asked the following questions: I wanted to know what section of the Medical Code of Ethics gave physicians the right to perform surgery on infants and minors for which there was no medical indication. Do parents really have the right to request or consent to the amputation of normal, vital and healthy body parts of their children? What sections of the Criminal Code or any medical code of ethics gave them this right? While parents certainly have the right to provide necessary medical treatment in the case of illness, the law certainly does not permit the amputation of normal and vital body parts on non-consenting individuals. What is the purpose of surgery? Should it not be a treatment of last resort?
I also pointed out that the medical code of ethics states that a physician must "first do not harm" in treating his/her patients. Circumcision is certainly a destructive process removing most of the erogenous tissue which certainly enhances a male’s sexuality throughout his life – and how can any reason be used to justify such a travesty.
Not one medical organization was able to address even one question which I put to them. I received general responses to my repeated letters to the Colleges about how the decision was left to the parents and doctors, that the College of Physicians and Surgeons had no policy of male circumcision, that it was not a priority to the college, that they would discuss it at a later meeting or that it was too costly to inform doctors within the province or educate them, or that the registrar or deputy registrar was unable to speak on behalf of the board. Eventually, they became angry and refused to answer any more letters and informed me that the issue was closed. This is the typical response across Canada by all those writing to the College of Physicians and Surgeons in each province.
Of course when you are no longer able to elicit a response from the College, someone who was not involved in the initial process will write a similar letter – usually getting similar responses. What finally caused the Saskatchewan College of Physicians and Surgeons to deal with the issue was a letter from a colleague who questioned the number of circumcisions in Saskatchewan as compared to other provinces in Canada. Saskatchewan had the highest rate and the question was asked why?
I finally received a memo from the Saskatchewan College of Physicians which was a directive to doctors in the province informing them that it was bad medical practice to perform circumcisions for which there was medical necessity and that doctors were not obliged to perform circumcisions merely at the request by parents. The Saskatchewan College of Physicians and Surgeons had to deal with the ethics of circumcision and had to acknowledge that the amputation of normal, healthy tissue on non consenting individuals has no place in modern medicine.
Two of Saskatchewan’s daily newspapers published a similar article stating the position of the Saskatchewan College of Physicians and Surgeons. The headline in one paper stated: "Circumcisions No Longer Necessary", the other headline read: "Too Many Circumcisions in Saskatchewan". Both headlines begged the question: "Were circumcisions ever necessary?" and "What would be the appropriate number of circumcisions in Saskatchewan?" Statements such as these make no more sense than saying that break-in’s were no longer necessary in Saskatchewan, or that there were too many break-ins in Saskatchewan. You have to wonder about the genius of those who write headlines.
While males in Saskatchewan and in general are now beginning to speak out against circumcision and deriding it as barbaric and inhumane, it appears that the greatest proponents of male circumcision are female. One mother wrote that she was appalled that the Saskatchewan College of Physicians should issue such a memo. She had her son circumcised because it would prevent a host of problems when he reached old age. Apparently aged men ( I don’t know what happens to female patients) who are unable to bathe themselves have had to have their foreskins forcibly retracted and cleaned by hospital staff. If this is the typical type of abuse which elderly males are subjected to when they reach old age when incarcerated in "old folks homes" perhaps it is a blessing to die young.
Another woman from the Yukon wrote that the reasons why males who were circumcised developed problems are because "Rabbis" should do all circumcisions. During the past years there were at least six articles written by female editorial writers and published in Canadian daily newspapers ridiculed men for crusading against male circumcision. Barbara Kay wrote in the National Post that men should keep their crusade out of newspapers and that their views should be confined to Internet.
A caller into a Saskatchewan radio talk show indicated that a woman circumcised her twin sons because she hated males and wished to punish them. This type of abuse was paid for by the Saskatchewan taxpayers and carried out by a medical doctor who had the professional obligation to protect the interests of his patients – not to abuse them.
No man would have dared to write such an article concerning any issue relating to females. No paper would have ever dared to publish such demeaning and dehumanizing articles. Then why would they publish articles demeaning to males?
I began to wonder what happened to the right to choose what is best for one’s own body. Does this apply only to females? Does not the Canadian Charter of Freedoms and Rights apply equally to both genders, regardless of sex and age? If not – then of what value is the Charter? Obviously what is good for the goose is not good for the gander?
Whenever the issue of male circumcision appears, there are numerous letters from females which remind us that there are other issues of greater importance. We should be concerned about the starving in Africa, or that when we bring up the topic of male circumcision - this somehow detracts from women’s issues. It then occurred to me that this type of response was not only typical when it came to male circumcision – but was a common occurrence whenever we discussed any aspect of equality to which males have been deprived.
Allan Rock, when Minister of Justice, informed me and other colleagues who wrote to him, that in Canada we often had to treat people unequally in order for everyone to receive equal treatment. A number of years ago, the Leader Post in Regina reported that Allan Rock made a similar statement to the Saskatchewan Law Society. Furthermore Mr. Rock stated that the Liberals were considering laws which would legalize the unequal treatment of people under the law. Perhaps using his logic, gun laws could have been passed requiring registration in some provinces but not in others. Unequal laws are required in order to make us equal!
Is Allan Rock really suggesting that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is meaningless? If Mr. Rock became the future Prime Minister of Canada, is this in fact the policy which he would implement? The exchange of letters between Mr. Rock ended when he was asked how does destroying a vital and erogenous part of a person’s body provide equality with females?
When Anne McLellan was asked why males were discriminated against when laws were passed to protect females, she responded that it didn’t matter if males lost a vital part of their bodies because it was done by medical experts and under sanitary conditions. She stated that because male circumcision was not as severe as female circumcision males need not the same type of protection. Using this type of logic we could also legalize the rape of males or the abuse of male children because they are physically stronger and able to protect themselves. This is our governments view on justice and equality.
When it comes to other issues why is the government so hesitant to provide fathers the equal opportunity of parenting when a marriage breaks up? Fathers who are unable to provide spousal or child support have their drivers licences revoked making it virtually impossible for them to exist. Many commit suicide. Divorced fathers are forced to fund their children through university until the children reach the age of majority which is 24, while married couples or foster parents who are funded by Social Services do not have this type of obligation. Why the discrepancy under the law? Such laws are obviously passed as a punitive measure against males.
Why are so many females opposed to ending of male circumcision in Canada and the USA? Why are members of the medical profession reluctant to speak out against this practice. Why is the government reluctant to legislate an end to MGM in the same manner as FGM in Canada? First this would upset the current scenario: males are portrayed as the main perpetrators of crime. In America they would become the main victims of crime. To admit that doctors are performing procedures contrary to the medical code of ethics would be admitting medical fraud and malpractice which could lead to massive lawsuits. Circumcision has become a great profit incentive for doctors. Legislators depend upon votes by those who circumcise their sons and therefore must not alienate voters. Church leaders and televangelists depend upon funding from their audience and money in this situation must be the prime consideration. They have every motive to keep the mutilation mill running.
I must admit that some of our greatest allies are women who are carrying out the fight for men’s rights when most men for some strange reason remain silent. Many prominent medical doctors and members of the medical profession are also voicing their objection to this great fraud and hoax. How much abuse and ridicule must males be subjected to before they speak out and take control over their own bodies?
Just because we were victims of assault or questionable medical practices does not mean that our children should become victims. The lies used to perpetuate circumcision must be exposed. Society’s systemic oppression and trivialization of men’s rights and emotional lives must come to an end. There are no valid reasons to mutilate the genitals of our children. Our sons deserve the same protections as female children. Let us all speak out against his barbaric and dehumanizing practice. Males have rights too.
John Sawkey - as published in "Everyman: A Journal For Men"