15,658
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Canada and circumcision in the 21st century: Add Section 7 link.
At the beginning of the 21st Century, only the Manitoba Health Insurance Plan (HIP) still paid for non-therapeutic circumcision, however that was ended in 2006.
The [https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health.html Public Health Agency of Canada] carried out a survey of mothers' birth experiences in 2006-7. Item 38 was male infant non-therapeutic circumcision.(See pages 224-5.)
<blockquote>
Among women with a male baby, 31.9% (95% CI: 30.3–33.6) reported circumcising their baby. There was marked regional variation in circumcision. In the 10 jurisdictions in which at least five circumcisions were reported, the proportion of women who reported having their male baby circumcised ranged from 44.3% (95% CI: 39.2–49.4) in Alberta and 43.7% (95% CI: 40.6–46.8) in Ontario to 9.7%† (95% CI: 5.2–14.2) in the Northwest Territories and 6.8%† (95% CI: 3.6–10.0) in Nova Scotia.<ref>{{REFdocument
}}</ref>
* Most hospitals do not provide non-therapeutic circumcision, however [https://www.wrh.on.ca/ Windsor Regional Hospital] is an exception to the general rule. Windsor Regional Hospital still promotes medically-unnecessary, non-therapeutic circumcision to parents of normal, healthy male infants in apparent violation of the infants' [https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art7.html Section 7 rights]. The hospital is reported to circumcise 51 percent of boys born in the hospital. This is well above far higher than the incidence of non-therapeutic circumcision elsewhere in Ontario and Canada.<ref>{{REFnews
|title=Circumcisions spark debate
|url=http://www.cirp.org/news/windsorstar03-19-05/