MEDICAL FRAUD and the criminal assault of boys
CBC COMMENTARY
Thomas Barker
20/2/04
Introduction:
A year and a half ago a baby in British Columbia bled to death after he was circumcised. Last week a coroner's report made no recommendation on the future of the practice. Thom Barker is a freelance writer in Ottawa. On Commentary he has a suggestion.
Thom Barker:
Last week we were horrifically reminded that circumcising baby boys is not without the highest risk. It can and occasionally does lead to their deaths. But the articles I've seen on it recently didn't focus on how unnecessary it is; they discussed how circumcision should be done more safely. So with safety in mind here's my advice. Ban it! Stop mutilating infant boys for no good reason.
For nearly 30 years now the Canadian Paediatric Society has officially stated that circumcision is medically unnecessary. Long term statistical evidence has proven that the risks of doing it outweigh the risks of not doing it, and medical ethicists almost universally decry it.
So why do we continue to circumcise about one out of every five boys born in this country? Why do we continue to leave it up to the parents and doctors to decide?
The first reason is familiarity. Circumcision has been and remains such a common practice - to make baby look like daddy - that we're reluctant to recognize it for what it really is: genital mutilation. To do so would be to condemn our parents, our friends, our siblings and possibly ourselves as guilty of criminal assault.
More problematic is the religious justification. Childhood circumcision of boys is an integral aspect of the Jewish and Muslim traditions and cultures. But similar arguments based on tradition did not stop Canada in 1997 from banning female genital mutilation. It did not stop us because it was viewed as a human rights issue. In fact, as a society, we routinely override the rights of parents to protect children from perceived harm. So why doesn't this protection extend to infant boys?
Male circumcision is hardly universal even among practising Jews and Muslims. In fact, there are significant numbers of both, including religious leaders, who advocate discontinuing the practice because it's contrary to more fundamental principles of their faiths, most importantly respect for human life.
So even in the religious context it seems that parents have some freedom of choice.
I was born Catholic. At about the same time that I might have had my foreskin removed, I was baptized instead. When I later renounced my Catholicism I resented having been baptized against my will. But fortunately I didn't have an irreversible physical deformity to forever remind me of it.
Would it be so egregious to make parents wait until their sons can make the decision for themselves? There's no end to the legal protection adults have to damage themselves.
For Commentary, I'm Thom Barker in Ottawa.
Reprinted With Permission