In her column of March 31[, 2001Calgary Herald], "Ancient ritual does no harm," Catherine Ford provides a stunning example of ignorance regarding the current medical knowledge about infant male circumcision. She demonstrates a similar lack of understanding of the ethical and legal arguments relevant to circumcision that are set forth in my book, The Ethical Canary.

She is wrong when she says there is medical evidence the procedure does no harm to the child. Leaving aside circumcisions that go wrong -- and in rare cases have even resulted in death -- and the serious pain involved, circumcision removes healthy, erogenous tissue with specialized mechanical, protective and sexual functions.

But even if Ford were correct about the medical evidence, it would not justify circumcision. To justify, ethically and legally, carrying out surgery on persons unable to consent for themselves, the surgery must be necessary therapy and the least harmful and invasive way to obtain the therapeutic benefit. Routine circumcision fulfils neither of these requirements.

Ford accuses me of seeking to break the covenant that circumcision constitutes for Jews by speaking against it. She also accuses me of wanting to marginalize religions that mandate circumcision by my suggesting that, if circumcision were generally prohibited, it might be able to be justified on the basis of a charter right to freedom of religion, for those people for whom it is a religious obligation.

In other words, I'm damned if I speak against it (as I believe ethically I must) and I'm damned if, in doing so, I act on the basis of a deep respect for people's religious beliefs and practices (as I also believe ethically I must).

The freedom of religion charter claim raises very complex issues about parents' rights to impose their religious beliefs on their children (see the Sheena B case, Supreme Court of Canada). And such a right is in conflict with the child's charter right to security of his person and protection of his bodily integrity.

Ford obviously does not understand the legal basis of the charter challenge to circumcision that is based on the Criminal Code prohibition on female genital mutilation. The argument is that in passing a law to protect the bodily integrity of girls and not giving similar protection to boys, the law discriminates on the prohibited ground of sex and, therefore, is unconstitutional.

The aim is certainly not to wipe out the protection of genital integrity given to girls, but to have a respectful discussion of what we owe to boys in terms of protecting them. No reasonable, properly informed person, including rabbis who strongly support infant male circumcision, believes it is like a manicure, as Ford describes it.

Ford might like to consider that the reason the baby was so quiet after the procedure was he was in a state of shock. The serious pain of circumcision, and of the resulting open wound which is in contact with the child's acid urine for about a week, is a matter of common sense.

There is also medical evidence of the impact of the pain, with possibly life-long effects. We can speak of a human right not to have pain unjustifiably inflicted on us, and this includes children. The fact that circumcision has such important religious significance makes it an extraordinarily difficult and sensitive issue to discuss. But sometimes it is unethical to avoid such discussions, which must be carried out in an atmosphere of deep mutual respect.

I was not sure whether Ford was implying that my statements were anti-Semitic. But if she were, she might be interested to know that when the same has been alleged in the past, many Jewish people, including rabbis, have expressed their dismay at such labeling.

Margaret A. Somerville,
Montreal, Que. Canada

And from her book, The Ethical Canary. 2001:204-205)
"A common error made by those who want to justify infant male circumcision on the basis of medical benefits is that they believe that as long as some such benefits are present, circumcision can be justified as therapeutic, in the sense of preventive health care. This is not correct. A medical-benefits or "therapeutic" justification requires that overall the medical benefits should outweigh the risks and harms of the procedure required to obtain them, that this procedure is the only reasonable way to obtain these benefits, and that these benefits are necessary to the well-being of the child. None of these conditions is fulfilled for routine infant male circumcision. If we view a child's foreskin as having a valid function, we are no more justified in amputating it than any other part of the child's body unless the operation is medically required treatment and the least harmful way to provide that treatment". 

_________________________________________________

From The Human Sexes, A Natural History of Man and Woman, by Desmond Morris:

After the dramas of birth and baptism, a child's ordeals are far from over. In many cultures the children must face the ritual genital mutilation we call circumcision. This extraordinary procedure which, were it not hallowed by ancient tradition, would be prosecuted as child abuse, occurs in several forms in different parts of the world, sometime applied to young males and sometimes to young females. Literally millions of cases of these genital assaults occur annually and a whole range of preposterous excuses and explanations have been given as to why this savaging of young humans is necessary. In earlier days most of the explanations had to do with religious dictates, sacred demands that could not be queried rationally. With the fading of religious beliefs in some countries in later years, new excuses had to be found and a set of spurious medical reasons invented. The Jewish faith calls for circumcision on the eighth day following birth. The baby suffers acute pain, but is otherwise uninvolved in the ritual. In some countries, however, the mutilation is deferred until the male children are fully aware of what is going on. When a boy is selected, his mother may not intervene. He is held down by his godfather while his foreskin is cut away. Afterwards he is given a diploma and must kiss the hand of the man who has mutilated him. No other species behaves in this bizarre way towards its young· No matter how cruel or pointless they may be, they become stubbornly resistant to common sense or objective medical opinion.

________________________________________________