MEDICAL FRAUD and the criminal assault of boys
In response to her article ridiculing the Association for Genital Integrity which was organizing a court challenge to current laws in Canada which discriminates against males. Ms. Ford criticized those who oppose the mutilation of baby boys as a "stunning example of ignorance."
(As it could be expected - there was no response from Ms. Ford. Canadian publications contained a number of similar chauvinistic articles written by five female columnists over a period of a few months. Each of these articles was demeaning to males. I challenge any publication to publish a similar article which would likewise degrade females.)
Letter to Catherine Ford - Calgary Herald Columnist
April 16, 2001
Dear Ms. Ford:
I wish to respond to your article "Ancient ritual does not harm" published in the Calgary Herald on March 31. (2001)
I took great exception to your article which is hardly based on fact, but merely on assumptions which you have made. I find it difficult to believe that anyone who has done even a minimal amount of research on circumcision could have written such an uninformed article.
In addition to the misinformation presented, as a male I find the article offensive and dehumanizing. I would have hoped to be accorded the same type of respect and dignity given to females. I have discussed this, and other similarly biased articles, with male friends and they agree. If females want males to be receptive to their concerns, then we as males expect the same. We will not accept the ridicule and dehumanizing comments from feminist columnists who really don’t understand males or care about their rights. We will no longer remain silent or accept this form of abuse.
Ms. Ford, I don't know how you as a female can make a value judgment on what is harmful to males or state that circumcision is not traumatic. How do you know what is like to have a very delicate and part of your body exposed for life? How would you know what it is like to have painful erections because there was not enough foreskin to accommodate this? How would you know what it is like to have scar tissue which bleeds because of abrasions? Thousands of circumcised men endure these problems or require corrective surgery. I have numerous articles and letters by urologists stating that they are mainly dealing - not with intact males - but with the iatrogenic problems of adult males resulting from infant circumcision. Intact males seldom develop problems, and if do, they can be treated with little difficulty.
I have published a book in which I have documented many horror stories which resulted from circumcision. This included everything from gastric ruptures, gangrene, loss of genitals etc. Recently I have read that over 200 deaths result from circumcision in the US each year. Of course the doctors responsible state that the circumcisions were done according to standard procedures - and that complications unfortunately set in after circumcision. We are told that it was these complications, and not circumcisions which were blamed for these deaths. No one seems to have the intelligence to understand that if circumcisions (for which there was no medical indication) were not performed the disasters would have been avoided.
What about males who have lost all their genital organs and have had to undergo "sexual reassignment" as a result of botched circumcisions? I have recently read where seven boys have had to undergo sexual reassignment in one hospital in the USA. Mohels have been sued for damages when infants died or became seriously ill as a result from complications or infections resulting from circumcision. What about the Joan/John case in Winnipeg? There is no end to such atrocities.
A number of years ago a survey by NOHARMM was conducted in which over 400 adult males were questioned regarding their circumcision. Nearly 75% stated that they experienced complications as a result of their circumcision as infants. Many were still receiving medical attention to try and correct some of the harm done. They were angry and stated that doctors who performed surgery for which there was no medical indication should have their medical licences revoked and no longer be permitted to practice medicine.
Over the years I have read many horror stories. One father wrote about his son who ended up as a paraplegic as a result of a circumcision gone wrong. Ignorance results in a terrible price and unfortunately it is not the females (who have the temerity to advocate male circumcision) who have to pay it. It is the male victim who has to endure the results for the rest of his life.
Several years ago, a doctor (a former medical columnist) informed me that his penis was badly scarred as a result of his infant circumcision. He suffered from physical discomfort all his life. He was angry and became a bitter opponent of circumcision. Dr. John Warren MD in Britain also published a letter in the British Medical Journal objecting to his circumcision. The letter was co- signed by a number of colleagues. He currently has a web site and is also an outspoken critic of male circumcision. Are these individuals the “stunning examples of ignorance” which you described?
My concern about circumcision began a number of years while I was principal of a high school. One day a delegation of grade twelve boys asked to meet with me privately. They knew that I was a researcher and wished to make their concerns known. They were angry because they were victims of circumcision. They implored me to do something to end this deplorable practice, irreconcilable in a free and democratic society. Up to this point in time, I wasn't even aware that the boys were circumcised or that circumcision was even prevalent. Their concern resulted in emotions which I will never forget.
A few years later, as principal of an elementary school, the staff indicated that there was a young boy (10 yrs old ) who defied female staff members and publicly stated that he hated his mother. One day I was asked to deal with the student after he openly defied a staff member. In my office I asked him to explain his defiance and hatred of women and in particular his mother. He screamed at me and broke down crying stated that his mother had him circumcised - and that she would never do a thing like that to his sister (or even a dog). How much respect do you believe he has for females today? And would you blame him?
Am I to understand from your comments" to ban voluntary circumcisions, routinely performed for other than religious reasons, would isolate religious observance from the mainstream" which translates that all the physical and emotional trauma from the horrors of circumcision - must continue because we must not isolate religious observance from the mainstream? Must we only circumcise our children because it is a Jewish custom even though there is no medical necessity for it? Are we also obligated to subject our children to other religious customs which may likewise harm them in order not to isolate them from the mainstream?
Why should millions of non Jews or Muslims be any more concerned about circumcision than Jews or Muslims about Christian practices? The Lord's Prayer, Christmas Carols involving the words Jesus have been banned and eliminated in Saskatchewan schools, as well as in almost every province and state in the USA, because the Jews find these practices offensive, yet somehow we must undergo genital mutilation (which we find offensive) to give credence to Jewish practices? Doesn't tolerance and acceptability go both ways - or is it only tolerance towards Jewish practices which are of importance?
This past week, I heard that there is a call for the banning of the Lord's Prayer which is used to begin the Nova Scotia Legislative Assembly each day because it is offensive to Jews and other minority groups. I have yet to read one article by any Jew demanding that other Jews observe Christian practices in order to give credence to Christian practices? Again - why aren't the Jews and Muslims accepting Christian customs in order to prevent the “isolation of religious observance” of Christian practices from the mainstream? Or is it only Jewish practices which must be accepted?
You stated erroneously that because circumcision “ does no lasting harm and is not a painful procedure” that we should condone the practice. It this really what surgery is all about or should there be some medical necessity for it? One noted columnist stated that there were “no simple surgeries, just simple surgeons.” The tragic results of even the most minor surgery has often consequences.
Since I have retired, I have felt obliged to fulfill my commitment to the former high school students. I have written articles and letters which have been published throughout the US and Canada. I soon received an avalanche of mail from men and women stating that they agreed with me. I received a phone call from a young man in the US who stated that he felt probably worse than a female victim of rape. He had the scars to constantly remind him of the indignity which he suffered. He was emotionally devastated.
Another young man wrote to me that he was so distraught over his circumcision that he overdosed and nearly lost his life. Today he is another "stunning example of ignorance" trying to end a practice which practically destroyed his life both physically and emotionally.
Several years I received a letter from a young man in the US asking me if I could find a doctor in Canada to surgically reverse his circumcision. Before I could respond, I received two more letters expressing his urgency. Just recently I received a similar request from a young man in Europe. You would have to be totally naive to believe that there was no harm done or lasting trauma as a result of circumcision.
Recently a young Jewish male , whose father was an MD who promoted and performed hundreds of circumcisions, phoned me and stated that he too felt violated and hated the practice. It was repugnant and he wanted no part of a ritual which dehumanized males. He wanted me to know that he supported my work. He feared, however, that his parents would discover that he phoned me.
Are Jews not entitled to express their objections to a practice which they find abhorrent? In a democracy many children choose religions different from that of their parents. Do not children of Jewish parents have similar rights or must they forced to undergo a mutilation whether they want it or not? And if parents are unable to impose it upon their children, this somehow creates a hardship for the parents?
There are many Jewish doctors working with us trying to expose the circumcision fraud. Among the noted Jewish physicians are Dr. Paul Fleiss who teaches at the U.S.C, in Los Angeles, Dr. Dean Edell who has a syndicated medical radio talk show out of KGO in San Francisco and reaches millions each day and is adamantly opposed to circumcision, and Leonard B. Glick M.D, Ph.D a professor of Anthropology at Hampshire Colleges who have joined a multitude of medical doctors in Doctors Opposing Circumcision. Are all of these reputable and intelligent members of the medical profession examples of “stunning ignorance” as you described them?
Perhaps you would care to read an excellent and well researched book by Ronald Goldman Ph D (another Jew) who has done a superb job in documenting “The Hidden Trauma” which deals with the circumcision trauma of both Jews and non Jews. Perhaps you could see how your assumptions correlate with the facts uncovered in his book. Goldman’s book can be obtained in most bookstores. Edward Wallerstein (a Jew) was one of the first to expose the myths used to promote circumcision in “CIRCUMCISION An American Health Fallacy” published by Springer in 1980. What he said in 1980 is very true today. Ignorance has caused the unnecessary mutilation of millions of males in North America.
I recently received a letter from a man in Hawaii who claimed that male circumcision is promoted by women who want to punish and dominate males. After reading the diatribes by you, Naomi Lakritz and recently by Barbara Kay in the National Post, I believe he summed it correctly. It appears that whatever the issue, and if it concerns males, that the main opposition comes from females who are able to oppose it in the media. One has to wonder why?
Whatever happened to the principle of the equality of rights under the law? Does this only apply to females? Why the reluctance of females to accord males the dignity and rights which they demand for themselves? This observation is becoming so obvious that not only are most men noticing it, but by concerned females who resent this bigotry which is directed against their husbands and sons. If discrimination against males can be justified for any reason, may not females likewise someday find the situation reversed and be subjected to the same kind of intolerance?
Contrary to what you said, the harm done by circumcision is extensive. Several years ago a group of nurses in the US refused to assist with circumcisions and became vehement opponents of the practice. This group includes several Jewish nurses who have organized Nurses for the Rights of the Child. They stated that every circumcision is a botched circumcision and decry the mutilation of children as an abhorrent practice which has no place in a civilized and democratic society. They described the screams of baby boys restrained who suffered from excruciating pain, and left with bloody raw penises. Hardly a “wonderful, uplifting” experience which you described - but rather brutal and bloody assaults which they could no longer tolerate and be a part of. The Nurses for the Rights of the Child would hardly agree to a charter exception to permit this practice. Nor would they believe that any cruel and barbaric assault should be sanctioned in the name of religion or democracy.
You stated that you did not believe there should be a charter exception because it would say to the assembled community “these” people are not us. Abuse of any nature does not need a charter exception, it needs to be abolished. And no one needs to be ashamed of the fact that he/she is against child abuse of any nature, for any reason. Sexual predators are “not us” and those of us who care about human rights and human dignity are proud to take this position.
Contrary to what you said , the harm done by circumcision is extensive. The physiology of the foreskin indicates that it is filled with an abundance of sensory nerves which greatly enhances a male’s sexual pleasure. The foreskin also protects the glans penis, lubricates it, and maintains its sensitivity. Even the American Pediatric Society states that the foreskin is essential for life. How does its amputation not cause harm?
Males circumcised as adults were amazed at the loss of sensitivity shortly after circumcision. Males who have undergone foreskin restoration (of a sort) by stretching the remaining foreskin over their glans were also astounded at the increased sensitivity. In the past few years over 10 000 males in North America have undergone foreskin restoration. They have discovered that the foreskin was not a useless piece of tissue has they had been led to believe. Unfortunately they have permanently lost the most valuable part of their foreskin which can never be replaced along with the frenulum which is extremely sensitive in intact males.
Perhaps you would care to obtain a copy of “The Joy of Uncircumcising” by Jim Bigelow PhD which is popular manual used by those who wish to undergo a semblance of foreskin restoration. I challenge anyone who has read this book to make further claims that no harm was done or that males do not suffer trauma because of their circumcision. Let’s get the facts and not perpetuate myths which only serve to promote a practice responsible for great harm.
The physical harm resulting from circumcision is well documented. Dr. John Taylor’s studies published in the British Journal of Urology (1966) and the BJU International (1999) are well known. The sensory deficit resulting from circumcision has been well known for more than a century. Circumcisions were performed to decrease sexual pleasure and curb masturbation. It was deliberately done to harm males, contrary to your statements of not being harmful.
Finally, what is the purpose of surgery? Do parents or doctors have the right to amputate normal, vital, functional body parts of children for which there is no medical indication? What about the Hippocratic Oath which states “First Do No Harm”? If parents do have the right to amputate body parts, how far does this right extend? Are doctors not required to treat all patients in accordance with ethical medical practices? Are doctors really obligated to perform non medical procedures on non consenting individuals including children merely at the request of parents? Or must they perform only medically necessary procedures? Does a child not have the right to protection against non medical intervention?
What about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which guarantees equal protection under the law regardless of sex and age. Does the Charter not apply to male infants or is it merely a meaningless piece of rhetoric? If the Charter does not protect the rights of helpless children, then what assurance is there that this same charter will protect our rights someday when they are violated? If we are to make exceptions in one situation, how many other exceptions may be made before the Charter has lost all credibility?
If circumcision of males is really a requirement by Jews, then why should not female circumcision be permitted by other cultures who also believe that it an essential part of their culture? Is the severity of any religious or cultural practice really a valid reason to prohibit it? Or is it only religious which require the sacrifice of a integral part of a male’s anatomy which must be protected? How severe must a mutilation be before it is outlawed?
I am sure that you are aware that over 90 million females in Africa have undergone various forms of genital mutilation. Neither do most of them feel that feel that they have been harmed by it or consider that the practice should be abandoned because of its severity. Whose definition of severity is to be considered, that of females in North America who find female genital mutilation revolting, or that of millions of females in Africa (also supported by political leaders and members of the medical profession) who desperately trying to preserve female circumcision? Severity is just a matter of opinion and depends upon the gender on whom it is perpetrated. Is it not?
The "comparison of apples to oranges excuse" ..."or rightly so argument" will no longer work. These statements are frequently used to rebuke individuals who attempt to make comparisons between female and male genital mutilation , or who compare male circumcision with other forms of deviant behaviour. It is the nature of the act which is offensive not the degree. Fondling or sexual touching are in fact less harmful physically than male circumcision. Should they therefore be condoned or permitted? Or will such a comparison be trivialized as “there is no comparison”. How much deviant behaviour can we tolerate using such excuses - and for how long?
Many individuals who are involved in the Genital Integrity Organization are victims of this dehumanizing practice themselves. They are working hard to spare newborn males from likewise becoming victims of this degenerative and dehumanizing practice. They are to be commended for their concern for the rights of children, not condemned as you have done. We cannot condone or accept any abusive procedure in the name of religion or democracy. Any individual with any sort of moral conscience has the obligation to demand an end to abusive and harmful practices.
Nothing is more terrible and destructive than ignorance. Yes there are those who are continually perpetuating lies to the public trying to convince them that there are medical benefits to circumcision. We are told that reporters must always write an unbiased view of male circumcision. Unbiased articles on one of the worst forms of child abuse today, when medical experts around the world agree that there are no valid medical reasons for circumcision, is repugnant?
Who are the individuals who should be questioned? Those who work to protect the interests of those who are unable to defend themselves, or those who have a shameless disregard the rights of others? Who are the ones having a conflict of interests capable of colouring their motivation and the validity of their claims? Those who have a whole trail of circumcisions and unethical practices to defend and whose professional reputations are at stake, or those whose sole motivation is the defense of the fundamental and inalienable right to bodily integrity of vulnerable persons who are unable to speak for themselves? It is time to say “enough is enough” and “what part of no do you not understand”? It is time to demand an end to the circumcision hoax and protect our children from unethical members of the medical profession
If you really believe that all males are not entitled to equal rights in a democratic society, I would appreciate a response to the following questions: (1) If all males are not entitled to the same protection guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I would like to know why not? (2) If doctors are not required to practice medicine in accordance with the principals of ethical medical practices, they why not? (3) If infant males are not entitled to the same protection as adults under the Criminal Code of Canada which prohibits unlawful mutilation of their bodies, then why not? (4) And if my body parts are less valuable to me as a male than female body parts are to a female, I would like to know why not? These are serious and legitimate questions which need to be addressed not brushed aside with further ridicule and contempt. Males have rights too!
Respectfully submitted by
John Sawkey
Director of Medical Ethics Network
cc: The Editor of the Calgary Herald