MEDICAL FRAUD and the criminal assault of boys
(A copy of this letter was sent to each member of parliament and senator of Canada as well as to the Honourable Allan Rock, Minister of Justice in 1996 (400 letters). I did not receive a reply to this letter from Mr. Rock - but I received several dozen replies from MPs.)
J
anuary 2, 1996The Honourable Allan Rock
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Dear Mr. Rock:
I would like to thank you for your reply to my letter. (A copy of your letter is enclosed for your reference.) This letter dealt with the legality of male circumcision. I also apologize for the length of this letter. It is impossible to adequately address, in one or two pages, such a serious topic as the non-medical and routine mutilation of children in hospitals today.
I did not respond earlier as I sought additional information, in particular from members of the legal and medical profession, in order to obtain their views as to what constitutes ethical medical practices, and how they feel the laws of Canada and The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms should apply to males and females. I am appealing to you and all parliamentarians to consider the information presented in this letter and the overwhelming arguments against routine male circumcision, and to legislate an end, not only female genital mutilation, but routine male circumcision for which there are no valid medical reasons.
If you recall, prior to the passage of the current Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, there was a great discrepancy in the Criminal Code of Canada with regards the difference in the nature of the laws governing sexual assault and their application to females and males. The prevalent complaint was that the laws provided better protection of males, because criminal acts committed against males resulted in stiffer penalties. On the other hand, certain acts such as rape, were only considered criminal offenses if committed against females.
In order to provide equality to both sexes, the rape laws were changed to sexual assault laws, and formulated to provide equal protection to both males and females. Penalties for crimes involving sexual assault would apply equally to both males and females. When special interest groups demanded the inclusion of the word “female” in the Charter to ensure the protection of women, Mr. Trudeau, the Prime Minister of Canada, stated unequivocally that this was unnecessary and redundant because The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provided equal rights for all individuals regardless of age or sex.
Mr. Trudeau obviously did not believe that there could be any exceptions to the law even if there was some justification for this type of discrimination. Exceptions to the law would invalidate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and would eventually lead to discrimination which the Charter was designed to prevent. Recent Supreme Court rulings indicate that they have upheld these views and have always ruled in favour of equal rights i.e. their recent ruling giving tobacco companies equality of rights to advertise, even though there is no doubt that tobacco products are harmful.
You stated in your letter that the, “difference in treatment between individuals under the law will not necessarily result in inequality and as well identical treatment may frequently produce serious inequality.”
If such an argument would indeed have any validity, then perhaps you would care to explain why the architects of the Charter felt that all individuals should be treated equally. Why was it necessary to revamp the laws governing rape, making this form of sexual assault upon males also a criminal offence? Why were males provided with the same protection accorded to females? Perhaps these laws should have remained unchanged with some modification to provide stiffer penalties for those who assault females? Do you really believe such laws would have been constitutional?
Section 15 states that: (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.” Also Section 28: Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.”
I would like to emphasize that the Charter specifically mentions “equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination....guaranteed equally to male and female persons.” There are no provisions in the Charter which would permit unequal treatment of males and females even if there was some justification for doing so.
If my interpretation of these sections is incorrect, then perhaps you would explain of what significance are the sections dealing with equality, if males and females can be treated differently under the law, as you have suggested? WHAT DOES GUARANTEED EQUALLY MEAN? I find your statement appalling and preposterous. Do you as Minister of Justice, not have the moral and legal obligation to enforce provisions made by the Charter, rather than to excuse your obligation by stating that exceptions can be made?
Several years ago, a commission in Ontario was established to review the conduct of medical doctors in Ontario who were accused of sexually assaulting their patients. Males who were victims of unwanted circumcision also made presentations (over the protestations of medical doctors) and were able to include male circumcision as a form of sexual assault. Are you suggesting that these males made unwarranted protests, because unlike females, males do not have the legal right to decide and choose what is in their own best interests?
You stated: “With respect to your comments on the application of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Charter guarantees a wide range of human and legal rights but only applies to government actions not private acts committed by individuals or corporate entities. In particular, Section 15 of the Charter guarantees equality before and under the law and the right to equal protection of the law without discrimination based on a number of enumerated grounds, including “sex” and “age”. You also stated: “I have indicated that the practice of female genital mutilation is generally prohibited by the Criminal Code under various assault and negligence provisions.”
With regards to your statements, and as Minister of Justice, I would appreciate your response to the following concerns:
(1) Which section of the Criminal Code states that only female genital mutilation is prohibited by the Criminal Code of Canada? There are certainly a number of references with regards to various assaults and negligence provisions, but I fail to find a single example of any law that was selective in its application and applies only to females, including that of genital mutilation.
(2) I understand that body mutilations of any type constitutes a criminal offence. Sex and age are not factors in determining this offence. If I am incorrect in my assumption, do parents have the right to amputate any normal, healthy body parts of their children, ears for example, if there are (assumed) legitimate reasons such as to facilitate hygiene, or in order that the child resemble his parents, or his peers, or for any other reason currently used to justify circumcision? Or is it just the foreskin which can be amputated for any reason, even if it is done solely in order to resemble the father, or just because the parents requested it?
(3) It was recently reported that you plan to take steps to criminalize female genital mutilation. If females are already protected under the provisions under the Criminal Code of Canada as you have stated, then why is it necessary to criminalize female genital mutilation? Why not enforce provisions of the law which are already in place? Furthermore, if the law already protects females from genital mutilation, what indication is there that similar provisions would not apply equally to males? If the laws can be discriminatory, are there any other sections of the Criminal Code or Charter which does not apply equally to males and females?
(4) You stated that the “Charter guarantees a wide range of human and legal rights and only applies to government actions not private acts committed by individuals or corporate entities.”
Are you suggesting that I or anyone else (including medical doctors) could legally perform non-medically necessary procedures on non-consenting individuals and be excused for such actions because we are private individuals? Are doctors not required to practice within the parameters of the law, and are they not accountable for their actions as medical practitioners? What about laws which protect individuals from unnecessary and inhumane treatment? Do these laws not apply to infant boys?
(5) You stated; “male circumcision remains a medically accepted procedure. More specifically, there are recognized medical benefits in appropriate cases.”
Do you consider surgery to resemble one’s parents or peers medically acceptable? Is any surgery done merely at the whim of parents or doctors appropriate, or should there be some medical necessity for it? We have statements from many medical professionals stating that the so-called relationships between circumcision and cancer of the penis, cancer of the cervix and sexually transmitted diseases, the relationship between circumcision and urinary tract infections, and many other claims, have all been disproved, discredited, or at best inconclusive. In all cases, alternative treatments which are less invasive, less traumatic and far more effective, are currently available.
Would not rational and intelligent individuals believe that alternatives to surgery should be the norm, and that surgery should be used only as the last resort, in situations where there are no other medical alternatives? Should not the mandate of medicine be to preserve each part of the human body as long as possible, by finding solutions in the curing of diseases? Do you consider it morally or ethically acceptable to amputate normal, healthy and vital body parts on non-consenting individuals? Circumcision is an irreversible procedure which individuals when they become adults may resent? If so, to what extent do we carry this logic (lunacy)?
We are frequently informed that circumcision prevents the spread of the AIDS virus, yet in 1993, The US Centers of Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia, the agency of the Public Health Services that investigates epidemics, reported that AIDS is now the leading cause of death of American Men between the ages of 20 and 45. The USA accounts for the greatest increase in the numbers of AIDS cases in the world. West Germany and Britain were among European countries reporting below average increases. The questions begs to be answered: “If circumcision actually prevents the spread of the AIDS virus, why is the spread of AIDS is so rampant in the USA where most American males have been circumcised? Countries where circumcision is virtually unknown, should have been devastated with AIDS. Again this is not so.
Dr. Eike-Henner Kluge, in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, in May 1994 Page 1542, made the following comments in reply to an individual who thought that preventative measures by amputating normal, healthy body parts was an acceptable practice: “If the answer to this question is Yes, then the same underlying principle should be applied to all similar cases: whenever there is statistical evidence that a potentially curable disease or condition with a low incidence rate could be prevented by surgery, but the evidence also indicates that the incidence rate is the same in other countries where the surgery is not routinely performed, we should still perform the surgery in every person in whom the disease or condition might develop. All sorts of medical conditions would be implicated. I suppose that we would be operating nonstop on just about every part of the human body. I shudder to think of the cost - and the implications for public health. The more appropriate action would be to investigate why the incidence rate of the disease or condition differs between countries.”
Dr. Margaret A. Somerville, Director of McGill Centre of Medicine, Ethics and Laws (In an analysis of your letter to me) stated: “It is correct that The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms only applies to government actions, not private acts carried out by individuals or corporate entities, However, passage of legislation is a government action, therefore, if it were true that the Criminal Code protected persons of a certain sex or age, this would constitute inequality pursuant to a government act, that is, the enactment of the Criminal Code, which would attract Charter scrutiny.
Dr. Somerville also made a further comment regarding your reply. “In my opinion, with respect, the difficulty with this letter from the Minister of Justice, is that it still does not address the basic issue, namely, that both non-therapeutic male circumcision and female genital mutilation are interventions on a child that , “prima facie”, constitutes a criminal assault. The issue then, is whether such a “prima facie” assault can be excused or justified. It would be, if the intervention were necessary medical treatment to which parents have given valid free and informed consent.” Emphasis are mine.
W.E. Briggman, Professor of Law at the University of Louisville School of Law made this statement in the Journal of Family Law, Volume 23, No.3. “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 form 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 feet or other disfiguring practices around the world.”
Richard W. Morris LL.B, Ph.D, who practices law in California and the US Federal Courts, stated in his well publicized article A New Area of Liability for Physicians, Hospitals and Parents: “Criminally, the circumciser is guilty of assault, battery, kidnapping, false imprisonment mayhem and child abuse. The District Attorney should as routinely prosecute these cases as it does child beating.” “As children come to age and become aware of this, we should see many suits filed against those who took part in the bit of butchery. Parents who consented based upon the advice of their physician might now reconsider, have themselves appointed as ‘guardian and Litem’, and seek to recover for their sons the dollar value of the horror the innocent children suffered. The doctors and hospitals just might get financially circumcised.”
Dr. Eike-Henner Kluge, Ph.D. a Professor with the Department of Philosophy at the University of Victoria, B.C. in his article on Female circumcision: when medical ethics confronts cultural values published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, in January 1993 148(2) made the following comparison: “For its part, Canada and Canadian physicians cannot consistently espouse the principal of respect for people on one hand, and then agree to a practice that violates that principle. Canadian Physicians cannot consistently accept the principle of respect for people in the name of medical ethics, and then perform procedures they know to be medically inappropriate, harmful and demeaning only because they do not want to offend a misplaced cultural sensitivity.” “ With due alteration of detail, the same ethical reasoning holds for male circumcision. There rarely are medical reasons for performing the procedure; personal preference or religious values of the parents usually underlie the request.”
“ If these are insufficient to justify the circumcision of girls then unless there are distinguishing medical reasons, they are also insufficient to justify the circumcision of boys. To argue differently is to be guilty of discrimination on the basis of sex. The fact that female circumcision is a more serious intervention does not alter the situation. Both involve what in other contexts would be called nonconsensual mutilation of a minor for non-medical reasons.”
Mary E. Lynch, MD. FRCPC, Victoria General Hospital in Halifax, NS in her letter to the Canadian Medical Association Journal published in July 1993 , Male and female circumcision in Canada stated: “It is high time that the medical profession took a more definitive stand on the issue of circumcision. I agree with Kluge’s reasoning and conclusion that the circumcision of girls and boys is unethical and is “nonconsensual mutilation of a minor for non-medical reasons.”
Keith Morgan, MD, FRCP(Ed), FRCPC, FACP, London, Ontario also in his letter published in the November 1993 issue of the Canadian Medical Association Journal 149(10) vehemently opposes male circumcision. The followings are a few quotes in his reply: “Dr. Shabbir M.H. Alibhai (Texas) attempts with meretricious arguments to justify male circumcision. He cites references suggesting that circumcision prevents urinary tract infections and phimosis and that it improves penile hygiene - a screed of canards. Dr. Morgan stated that the function of the foreskin was to protect the glans, which is almost insensitive to most ordinary tactile and thermal stimuli. Removal of the prepuce exposes the glans to foreign stimuli, which dull the special receptors. He also mentions the hazards of circumcision and concluded his article with a most profound statement. “ Finally, we should ask ourselves whether it is likely that nature, in her wisdom, would permit every male child to be born with a useless appendage, the presence of which, according to some, frequently leads to to serious consequences, including death. Why do men in Europe live so long despite not being raped at birth?”
In May of 1994, the British Medical Journal carried an article entitled Children’s consent to treatment written by JPH Shield (Research fellow) and, JD Baum (Professor of Child Health). They stated: “ While the age of informed consent remains contentious, an attempt should be made to fully explain the procedures and potential outcomes to the child, as stated the the European charter, even if the child is too young to be fully competent . After all, it is the child who will have to live with the outcome of the decision. One of the many themes running through Alderson’s book is the dismay and anger expressed by children who felt cheated by the explanations, or lack of them from parents and clinicians. Children who are legally too young to give consent to treatment must still be treated as individuals whose rights as members of society are not solely dependent on the legal definition of the day.” “Every child shall be protected from unnecessary medical treatment.” Emphasis are mine.
Dr. George Denniston, MD, University of Washington School of Medicine, has repeatedly stated: “Doctors who still perform circumcisions are violating the first rule of good medical care - primum non nocere - first do no harm.”
Dr. James Snyder, Past President of the Virginia Urologic Society, had this to say: “Thousands of men with AIDS fill the hospital beds of our major cities and are testimony to the failure of circumcision to offer any degree of immunity to AIDS infections. No one seriously advocates removing the breasts of female infants to prevent this more common malignancy of breast cancer. Circumcision must be recognized as an equally serious mutilation of men with equally insubstantial justification for continuing the practice.”
The entire July/August 1989 edition of The Truth Seeker (copies still available from The Truth Seeker, Box 2832, San Diego, CA 92112-9797) was devoted to the “Crimes of Genital Mutilation”. In this publication, authoritative medical and legal experts who have reviewed the multitude of arguments used to promote male circumcision concluded that there was no medical or legal justification for any of them.
During the past, we have provided you with a considerable amount of information by concerned medical professionals, and others who thoroughly researched arguments used to promote circumcision. It appears that you chose to ignore such credible information and have gone along with the premis that there must be some value to male circumcision, or why would this practice continue. If you, as Minister of Justice, feel strongly that male circumcision which is not medically necessary, should not be criminalized, then certainly you (as parents who opt for circumcision are expected to do) must have made a “fully informed decision” based on facts, rather than speculation or rumor.
Perhaps you are in possession of information, which we (including many members of the medical profession) are not aware of, indicating that there are indeed proven medical benefits to male circumcision. And it is on the basis of this information that you have decided to formulate laws which would only make it illegal for female genital mutilation. If so, we would appreciate your sharing this information with those of us who are not as enlightened. Or rather, are you suggesting that such surgery should be permitted just in case there may be some benefit for it?
The concept of equality is one of the first concepts to be observed and expected by children. Children learn this concept on their own and rebel when members of their peers are given preferential treatment. Why then is the basic concept of equality so difficult for adults to understand or accept? It is obvious that adults do understand equality. They are the first to demand equality for themselves, but for selfish reasons are the last to acknowledge and accept the fact that other individuals have similar rights.
During my career as a high school principal, I was approached by a dozen senior high school boys who expressed anger and rage over the violation of their bodies by unwanted circumcision. “Why should we respect the rights of others when our own rights were so blatantly violated”, they demanded. “Would you do something to end this dehumanizing practice,” they pleaded.
More recently, while principal of an elementary school, a young boy was questioned about his defiance and hatred of females, in particular a vehement hatred of his mother. He did not hesitate to scream his rage:” My mother mutilated my body by circumcision. She would never have done such a thing to my sisters”. Are these the so-called benefits of circumcision to which you make reference? And if such expressions do not equate to sexual assault, then what the hell are they?
During the past few years, I have received numerous phone calls from males of high school age to adults who learned about our organization through Internet and a variety of publications which have listed our organization, even without us being aware of it. They too expressed anger, resentment, fear that their parents would discover that they had called me, fear of losing their jobs, or suffer business losses, if they speak out against circumcision. Why do the proponents of these deviant acts intimidate or ridicule victims and those who oppose non-medical surgery into submission and silence, if their practices are indeed legitimate?
You justified the practice of male circumcision because medical organizations have neither spoken out in favour or against it. Mr. Rock, do you really believe that medical organizations are in a position to criticize unethical members of their peers? In addition, medical organizations usually do not speak out against non-medical concerns. Circumcision is seldom done for medical reasons. While most medical organizations have in the past spoken out against male circumcision, they have been placed in an untenable position where they are unable to speak out against such a prevalent practice which has been condoned and tolerated for so long.
Do you really anticipate that gun organizations who oppose the new gun legislation will speak out against those who do not register their guns? Will you accept their silence as a reason to sanction the violation of this law? Critics of your gun legislation have asked you to make exceptions to this law, yet you refused to listen to their pleas. If there are legitimate reasons to make exceptions as you indicate, are the suggestions of your critics less valid than yours? Or is it only laws prohibiting genital mutilation which should be made the exception?
Perhaps you recall the inquiry which revealed that the boys in the Kingsclear reformatory in New Brunswick were sexually abused for 30 years. This abuse continued for years even though government officials were told about it. Nothings was done to stop or prevent it. Many boys were housed at the reformatory just because they had no other place to go.
I am certain you are also aware why no action was taken. As is the current situation with circumcision, government officials were primarily afraid of offending the perpetrators of these horrendous crimes, rather than with the plight of the boys.
How long will the sexual abuse of boys by circumcision continue before governments also take steps to end this form of dehumanizing assault upon non-consenting males? Will it take another 30 years?
I am aware that the Minister of Justice can exercise prosecutorial discretion which results in decision not to prosecute. To exercise this prerogative in order to deny equality of rights (which are guaranteed) would certainly make a mockery of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I sincerely hope that your position is to value the rights of all individuals, that of both males and females. There can be no exception if the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is to have any significance. Neither should the abuse of human rights be tolerated because some acts are less severe than others.
The Criminal Code of Canada does not excuse certain acts committed against a segment of society (males for example) because they are not as severe as those committed against other members of society (females). Touching and fondling are certainly not as severe as restraining an individual and cutting off a part of his penis. Yet unwanted touching may be considered sexual assault. Stiff penalties often result from the violation of these laws. The severity of an act is never a legitimate excuse for not enforcing the law. There is no end to the variety of arguments used to sanction male circumcision. i.e. “There is no comparison. It is not as severe. There are recognized benefits. There are exceptions to the Law and the Charter. etc. etc.
If male circumcision has so many benefits as advocates would have us believe, then perhaps you can explain why there is so much opposition to it. Ethical and legitimate medical practices rarely reach this level of controversy. Something must surely be wrong with a practice over which a growing number of males are expressing resentment and anger. If the benefits of circumcision are so obvious, then why do intact males not rush to reap the benefits of circumcision?
Most intact males realize that they are most fortunate because their parents saw fit to preserve this very important part of their body. Recently, intact males in the USA have launched a newsletter “Intact Men Against Circumcision” in order to increase public awareness and stop this deplorable violation of male rights.
Abraham Lincoln once made the following statement which is most appropriate: “It is true that you can fool all the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all the time; but you can’t fool all the people all the time.” Intact males know the truth and do not have to constantly search for some justification of their status. Circumcised males frequently search for reasons to justify their circumcision. And now that they are becoming aware that there are no valid reasons for it, many victims feel angry and cheated.
A number of circumcised males have contacted me and asked me to honestly tell them if they lost anything as a result of circumcision. Unlike medical organizations, we have no axe to grind nor “political hides” to protect. Often the truth hurts, but it most be told. Yes, they have lost millions of valuable receptors and also experience a greatly diminished sensitivity as a result of their circumcision. Numerous males, circumcised as adults, because they were deceived into believing that circumcision would improve their lives, experienced permanent discomfort as well as a remarkable loss of sensitivity. They expressed great regret for their decisions. However, unlike infant males, they made the decision and were forced to live with its consequences.
Hundreds of males who have recently undergone foreskin restoration ( although it will never replace what was originally destroyed by circumcision) were shocked to discover the dramatic increase in sensitivity. They were equally appalled by the lies that have been told stating that circumcision does not diminish sensitivity or impair their sexuality. Truth always has the habit of surfacing.
Recently a television documentary described a situation where terminally ill AIDS patients were denied the right to try new experimental drugs which could prolong their lives or reduce symptoms which seriously hamper their lives. Repeated requests by their physicians to use these experimental drugs were denied, even though these patients had nothing to lose and everything to gain. Their requests were denied because the effectiveness of these drugs have yet to be proven, or because there may be some serious side effects. Yet thousands of males undergo routine circumcision daily just because their parents requested it, or because there
may be (not proven) some benefit for undergoing this painful and mutilating procedure. Ironic! Isn’t it?In summary , necessary medical treatment is not the issue. Rather, it is the routine circumcisions of infants for which there is no medical justification to which the majority of the world’s physicians object. The fact is that most circumcisions are performed by a few charlatans, who have little concern for the rights of their unconsenting patients, and who have been permitted to ply their trade. There is no other desire so overwhelming than their desire to mutilate another’s genitals. They usually display great hostility when faced with opposition or criticism. Their professional or moral ethics must never be questioned. Those engaged in legitimate practices have no need to take such a defensive position, and discontinue practices which have little medical value. Circumcisers lack this level of professionalism, and continue this archaic practice while they search for new reasons to justify them.
Perhaps the most outrageous statement made by some doctors is that it really doesn’t matter which decision parents make, whether they choose or decide against circumcision for their child. Either decision is acceptable. If either decision is acceptable, then why would any rational and intelligent parent inflict painful and unnecessary surgery upon their child? Have psychopaths really entered the medical profession? Albert Einstein stated that there were only two things which were infinite: the universe and ignorance. What could be more true?
Suggested medical reasons are merely a “smoke screen” to provide some credibility for such a deviant practice. The reasons are endless, and any reason to justify this practice will suffice. As soon as one reason is thoroughly debunked, you can be certain that advocates of circumcision will have found another reason to replace it. Circumcision will prevent masturbation, senility, prostate cancer, hip-joint disease, epilepsy, hysteria, bedwetting, cancer of the cervix, sexually transmitted diseases, penile cancer, AIDS, urinary tract infections, flooding of the Ganges River etc. etc.
And so the rape and mutilation continues unabated, because there are always reasons to justify and promote it. It was easier to tear down the Berlin Wall and end communism in Europe than it is to end the practice of genital mutilation. No other violation of human rights has been sanctioned to such an extent - all in the name of medicine, culture, tradition, religion or democracy.
In conclusion I ask: “Do you believe in the equality of rights of every individual as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and equal treatment of all individuals under the Criminal Code of Canada? If so, what will you do to ensure that all individuals will “receive equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?”
If you choose to do nothing, then my final question is that posed by my former students; “Why should we respect the rights of others when our rights have been so blatantly violated? ” Why should we respect laws which fail to protect us? And of what value is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Is it really worth the paper that it is written on?
Respectfully,
John Sawkey
Director
Medical Ethics Network Inc.
cc: Members of Parliament and Senators
Members of Legislative Assemblies
Open Letter to the Media
Medical Ethics Network Inc. Publications