22,335
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
wikify Somerville
In addition, Canada is a state-party to the United Nations ''Covenant on Civil and Political Rights'' (1966) and the ''Convention on the Rights of the Child'' (1989), both of which provide various [[human rights]] to children, which are violated by non-therapeutic child circumcision.
[[Margaret A. Somerville]], then Director of the [https://www.mcgill.ca/study/2010-2011/faculties/law/information/law_centre_for_medicine_ethics_and_law McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law], wrote to Pierre Blais in 1993, then Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, to propose that "male circumcision would not be totally banned. Rather circumcision of those persons unable to consent for themselves (which would, of course, include all infants) would not be allowed under the Criminal Code as it presently stands." However, no action was taken.<ref>{{REFweb
|url=http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/Canada/Somerville-Blais/
|title=Letter to Pierre Blais, Minister of Justice
|last=Somerville
|first=Margaret
|author-link=Margaret A. Somerville
|publisher=
|website=
Where a parent or substitute decision maker has deemed that it is in the child’s best interest to undergo a treatment, there may be some conflict between that privilege and the fundamental right to security of the person protected under Section 7 of the Charter. Because the State’s power to intervene is broad and can be permanent, parental decision making has been protected under the Charter. Nevertheless, the Court has determined that parents’ rights are not absolute and that the State will intervene when necessity is demonstrated.
Section 7 of the Charter provides everyone with a certain degree of autonomy in decisions concerning their private lives, including those concerning medical treatment. The protection of the security of the person is so fundamental that medical treatment administered without a patient’s informed consent may amount to battery. In the context of circumcision, if a medical practitioner performs routine neonatal circumcision without an infant’s parental consent, that practitioner may be liable for criminal assault as well as for damages for any harm that resulted from her or his negligence ([[Margaret A. Somerville|Somerville]], 2000).
Given that a portion of the medical community has agreed that routine male circumcision is nontherapeutic and that it may be in and of itself be a harmful practice, it is arguable that when performed on neonates for nontherapeutic reasons, it amounts to a violation of the child’s Section 7 rights. As stated at the Declaration of the First International Symposium on Circumcision, “parents and/or guardians do not have the right to consent to the surgical removal or modification of their children’s normal genitalia.” The Declaration adds that the only person who may consent to medically unnecessary procedures upon herself or himself is that individual, having reached a stage in life where she or he can consent and only upon being fully informed about the risks and benefits of the procedure. Note, however, that the Declaration is not a binding legal instrument.