MEDICAL FRAUD and the criminal assault of boys
Circumcision As Child Abuse:
"The Legal and Constitutional Issues"
W.E. Briggman
Professor of Law
"Despite the great concern about child abuse among scholars and legislators in the past twenty years, the same type of cultural astigmatism which prevented past generations from perceiving their actions as child abuse prevents contemporary Americans from perceiving or acknowledging the most widespread from of child abuse today: child mutilation through routine neonatal circumcision of males...from the perspective of a neutral outsider, neonatal circumcision is as barbarous as female circumcision, the removal of earlobes, fingers or toes, the binding of infant female feet or other disfiguring practices around the world."
Journal of Family Law
University of Louisville School of Law
Volume 23, No.3
All Circumcisions Equal Abuse
I had mixed reactions when I read the article which stated that Physicians in Ontario were requested to ban female circumcision.
One one hand, I'm elated that any concrete steps are being taken to halt the crimes of genital mutilation (GM). On the other hand, I feel that taking steps to halt female circumcision while at the same time permitting male circumcision to continue, is sexism at its worst.
I recognize that female GM tends to be more severe than male GM. However the mere fact that it is being performed on girls, as opposed to boys, does not make it any more a crime, nor does it make the religious, superstitions, cultural, or "medical" reasons for it any more illogical.
While, as the article points out, about 80 million African women undergo some form of GM, this is only a small fraction of the number of men who suffer GM throughout the world. Indeed, the province of Ontario itself has the highest rate of male circumcision in Canada, at just under 40 per cent.
As with other forms of abuse, the female GM victim attracts the greatest sympathy and the strongest reaction of protest while the screams of boys go unheard. I say it's time the international community blows the whistle and protects children from the crimes of genital mutilation regardless of the victims' race, color, nationality, (parents') religion, gender or age.
RICH ANGELL
"According to the logic which supports male circumcisions, a policy with regards to female circumcision in Canada was not required"
The fact that a policy must be written or that legislation must be passed in order to prevent female genital mutilation in America must certainly pose a number of serious questions to anyone who is considering the professional conduct of some of the members of the medical profession, or the real meaning of democracy in North America.
A number of questions rational, intelligent human beings might consider after reading such articles in newspapers throughout Canada and the U.S.A. are many:
(1) Why would any legislation be required to prevent physicians in Canada or the U.S. from performing non-essential surgery on non consenting individuals just because someone else requested it? Would not the professional ethics of any physician dictate that he not perform this surgery? Or can physicians not be trusted? In that case should they not be suspended from their profession, or disciplined? Should not the rights and welfare of the patient be of prime consideration?. Should not appropriate medical procedures which protect the interests of the child be the only ones permitted?
(2) Why would any legislation be required which is discriminatory in nature? Do not all citizens in a democratic country have equal human rights regardless of age or sex? Or are some individuals more equal than others?
(3 ) Richard Mosley, senior general counsel in criminal and family law policy for the federal Justice Department, said the Criminal Code already would apply to cases of female circumcision in Canada. "A child cannot consent to be mutilated and a parent cannot provide consent for a child to be mutilated," he said. "It would be seen by the Canadian courts as an assault causing bodily harm or an aggravated assault causing bodily harm or an aggravated assault, involving the wounding, maiming or disfiguring of the child." If this is the situation, are doctors not familiar with the Criminal Code of Canada? And do not our laws in the Criminal Code apply equally to males as well as female? Do not males similarly have the right to lay criminal charges for unwanted mutilations as well as females? And if not, why not?
(4) If the laws are not equally applicable to both males and females, then why does the Criminal Code not indicate which laws apply only to females, and which to males? Where not the laws related to sexual assault designed to include both genders? If so, how can anyone justify an exception with regards to illegal body mutilations?
(5) What are politicians and members of the medical profession in America doing to protect the rights of males, such as the security of person? If a newborn male is not entitled to the same democratic rights as females, at what age does he become entitled to them?
(6) If religion or social reasons are acceptable in order to circumcise males, then why not females? Recently Jews who migrated to the U.S.A. from Russia paraded their boys to Catholic hospitals to have them circumcised. Why should parents be denied the right to circumcise their daughters if they come from countries where these practices are also socially acceptable, and done for the same reasons as are currently given for circumcision of males in America? Should not individuals from other nations have similar democratic rights?
(7) Many males are asking this question: "Why should we respect the rights of others when our own democratic rights have been ignored and violated?" This is a question all who have endorsed the mutilation of males in Canada and the U.S.A. must answer. Finally, why would any government draft laws to protect only females from criminal assault?
John Sawkey / Director of Medical Ethics Network