MEDICAL FRAUD and the criminal assault of boys
"Doctors who do not believe circumcisions are medically necessary still circumcise, if requested to do so..."
Dr. Cheryl Whitman of Arroyo Chamiso Pediatric Center in Sante Fe, New Mexico made the following statements in articles by Keith Easthouse which was printed in The New Mexican on January 28, 1993 and February 3, 1993 articles. In the article entitled "Nurses: Circumcision consent form should alert parents to downside" Dr. Whitman was quoted as saying that "The pros and cons of circumcision probably even out." In the second article Dr. Whitman stated that while she will perform circumcision if requested by parents, even though she does not consider them medically necessary.
If this is the criteria on which medical decisions are made, we cannot help but comment on the tragic lack of professional ethics and moral integrity on the part of physicians who would do this. Why physician would put a child through surgery and amputate an important part of his body, when such surgery is unnecessary, defies all human logic. If the "pros" and "cons" of circumcision would probably even out, as Dr. Whitman had stated, would she not be obligated to take the position against circumcision?
If parents similarly came with a request to amputate other normal parts of their children's body even though there was no medical necessity, would she also honor their request? In the U.S., parents can legally circumcise females (in 1993) without fear of legal action. If parents came with the request to circumcise their daughter, would be as willing to Dr. Whitman do this? Or is it just the male she lacks respect for as a patient?
Another Canadian doctor also stated: "that it really doesn't matter if a parent decides to circumcise or not, as long as they feel good about the decision." How should males who have become angry or resentful of the fact that they were victims of unwanted circumcision interpret these statements? Are doctors who hold this view also suggesting to males who are seeking the restoration of a part of their body, that these unwanted intrusions really don't matter, as long as the parents felt good about the decision? One has to question the moral or professional judgment of any medical doctor who has a callous disregard for the rights of the male and still performs this surgery in spite of its questionable value.
If the decision to circumcise really doesn't matter either way, then why are advocates of circumcision so upset with individuals who are speaking out against it? Their statements and actions are contradictory, to say the least.
Recently, 24 nurses at St. Vincent Hospital in Santa Fe, New Mexico informed physicians and other nurses in writing, that they will no longer assist with routine circumcision of newborn male infants. Dr. Stephan Lucero, a urologist, at the hospital stated that the nurses were "trying to be doctors" and were " overstepping their bounds." "This should be a decision between doctors and families. Nurses were jumping in with misinformation and misleading the public," Dr. Lucero had stated.
One has to seriously question the ethical judgment of Dr. Lucero, and others like him, who appear to indicate that parents, who unlike untrained medical professionals, are expected to make intelligent decision; but, on the other hand, nurses who are well aware that there are no valid medical reasons, are to remain silent. One has to be totally naive, not to be able to see who is guilty of providing misinformation and who in reality is misleading the public. It is not the dissenting nurses.
The fact that most medical doctors in other countries in the world do not recommend circumcision certainly has to cast some doubt on the professional ethics of Dr. Lucero and other the doctors in St. Vincent Hospital who (only in American hospitals) find it necessary to routinely circumcise boys. Correspondence from medical doctors around the world indicate that they are appalled that the practice of circumcision still continues in America today. Conscientious members of the medical profession, including the nurses in the hospital, not only have the right to question the need of surgery which is of little value, but have the moral obligation to speak out, inspite of the objections of the doctors. Certainly the almost unanimous professional judgments of physicians in other countries including the majority of medical doctors in Canada give much credibility to the nurses who are voicing their objections to the circumcision of infant males. There are a vast numbers of medical doctors in the U.S.A who share the opinions of these members of the medical profession and are also speaking out against routine circumcisions.
The nurses are not alone in voicing their objections. In view of the fact that the majority of the world's physicians also share the view of the nurses, would anyone suggest that they too were also guilty of providing deceitful or misleading information? The opinions of the multitude of medical doctors who do not routinely circumcise cannot all be wrong.
The continuation of circumcision in America however, has cast serious reflection on the medical profession in the U.S.A. as a whole. Allegations by Dr. Lucero with regards to the professional conduct of the nurses in the hospital have to be seriously questioned. If doctors in most of the affluent countries in the world do not recognize the need to circumcise infants routinely, then why does Dr. Lucero? Is his medical knowledge superior to that of most honorable members of the medical profession in other parts of the world, or is his desire to mutilate greater?
We applaud the decision of the nurses who took this stand. Males who have been unwanted victims of the dehumanizing form of surgery as well as other individuals who respect the rights and integrity of all individuals, sincerely commend you. As one victim of circumcision so aptly described it: "If a man is so blind to his own blindness that he seeks, or is willing, to blind those who can see, shouldn't he be told that he is blind?" John Sawkey - Published in 1993.