Child Circumcision: Rites or Rights?

Child Circumcision: Rites or Rights? by Dr. Arif Bhimji.

Video

It is becoming more and more apparent that routine circumcision of boys raises the same basic human rights issues as FGM. Two of our leading medical ethicists, Dr. Eike-Henner Kluge and Dr. Margaret Somerville, have warned that infant male circumcision presents serious ethical and legal difficulties. Dr. Kluge, a former Director of Ethics and Legal Affairs at the Canadian Medical Association, has characterized infant male circumcision as "non-consensual mutilation of a minor." Dr. Somerville, Founding Director of the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law, has likened infant male circumcision to criminal assault.

Evidence suggests that except in rare cases when it is performed in response to a specific medical need, male circumcision confers no net medical benefit and may harm the person who undergoes it. The Canadian Paediatric Society concluded in 1996, after an exhaustive review of the medical literature, that any potential benefit from neonatal circumcision does not outweigh the surgical risks associated with performing the procedure. Paediatric organizations in other countries, including the United States, have come to similar conclusions.

The foreskin is an integral, normal part of the external genitals. It forms the anatomical covering of the glans penis and clitoris. One recent medical study concluded that the inner surface of the male foreskin may be "an important component of the overall sensory mechanism of the human penis". It is clear that removing such anatomy from a healthy child raises important human rights issues.

Relative degree of harm is not an appropriate criterion for distinguishing male circumcision from FGM. The milder forms of FGM are no more severe than male circumcision. In some traditions, female circumcision involves removing only the clitoral hood, while in other traditions, female circumcision involves nicking the genitals without removing any tissue whatsoever. Canadian law prohibits all forms of FGM, regardless of severity. If the milder forms of FGM cannot be excused on the grounds that they are less severe than male circumcision, then male circumcision cannot be excused on the grounds that it is less severe than the more extreme forms of FGM.

Circumcision of boys for non-medical reasons is gender-specific discrimination—that is, boys are treated differently just because they are boys. Circumcision of girls for non-medical reasons is prohibited. The reasons commonly cited for male circumcision and female circumcision are identical: cleanliness, good appearance, conformity to societal values, preservation of cultural identity, potential health benefits. If these reasons are insufficient to justify circumcision of girls, they are insufficient to justify circumcision of boys.

See also

• Canada

External links

• Bhimji A. Infant Male Circumcision: A violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.. Health Care Law. January 2000; 1: 1-33. Retrieved 7 November 2019.
• Chessler AJ. (CIRP) Justifying the Unjustifiable: Rite v. Wrong. Buffalo Law Review (Original faksimile). 4 January 1997; 45(2): 555-613. Retrieved 31 August 2023.
• Hill, George (September 2007). Answers To Your Questions About the Bioethics of Infant Circumcision , NOCIRC. Retrieved 7 December 2019.