MEDICAL FRAUD
and the criminal assault of boys
No one can debate the pros and cons of circumcision until he/she can prove that it is a legal, legitimate and an ethical medical procedure.
Until this is established, doctors performing circumcisions are guilty of fraud and unethical practices.
According to the Criminal Code of Canada, circumcisers are guilty of committing assault and battery upon their patients.
If this is not so - we challenge you to prove otherwise.
Section 244 states: " Everyone who, with intent (1) to wound, maim or disfigure any person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years. Section 269 states: "Everyone who unlawfully causes bodily harm to any person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years".
$1000 reward for the answer to any one of the following
questions:
We offer this reward to anyone who can prove that male circumcision on non-consenting individuals, and for non-medically indicated conditions, is a legal and an ethical medical practice.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states : Sec. 15 (1) "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right of equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national origin, sex, age, or mental and physical ability".
Section 28: Notwithstanding anything in the Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to males and females.
The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution states: "No state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law."
Criminal laws designed to protect one sex only, in Canada and the USA, are clearly against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the American Constitution. If female circumcision is specifically identified as a criminal offence in Canada and in the USA, then clearly such laws must be applied equally to males. The Supreme Courts of either country could hardly rule otherwise. If they did, the Charter of Rights and the American Constitution would not be worth the paper on which they are written. If one law can be made which is discriminatory against sex, then how many other laws can likewise be enacted?
If we have freedom to mutilate boys for religious or social reasons - then what about a similar right to mutilate girls? A law has been enacted both in Canada and the USA stating that any form of female circumcision, regardless of severity, and unless medically necessary, would constitute a criminal offence. The American law outlawing female circumcision states that religious beliefs and customs are not acceptable reasons to permit it under the law. Is this the American definition of religious freedom? If laws cannot be permitted to outlaw religious practices or cultural requirements, then why the criminalization of female circumcision?
The Committee responsible for hearing the Canadian Court Challenges ruled that males are already protected under the Criminal Code of Canada in the same manner as females. (This was in response to a court challenge request for funding by the Association for Genital Integrity in Canada.) Therefore there was no need to specifically include male circumcision in the Criminal Code of Canada. According to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, all laws must apply equally to males and females, regardless of sex or age. If so, circumcision for non-medically indicated reasons on non-consenting individuals is clearly a criminal offence, and as such, males in Canada are free to take legal action any time in their lives. Circumcisers beware.
QUESTION 1: Where under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or under the American Constitution do we have any provisions to discriminate against males?
QUESTION 2: What laws under the Criminal Code permit doctors to amputate normal, healthy and vital body parts of unconsenting individuals for non-medical reasons or permit parents to make such a request? (The unlawful amputation of body parts or harm to them is clearly forbidden by law and constitutes mayhem - assault and battery.)
QUESTION 3: Under the law, doctors can provide (and parents may only request) medically necessary treatment to minors. Where under any medical code of ethics are doctors permitted to amputate normal, healthy and vital body parts of children merely at the request of parents - and for which there is no medical necessity?
QUESTION 4: The purpose of surgery is to repair body parts or amputate body parts which become diseased and threaten the life of the patients. Where under any medical code of ethics are doctors permitted to amputate body parts for cultural or religious reasons?
QUESTION 5: Where under any medical code of ethics are doctors permitted to amputate normal body parts of children in order that they resemble their parents or their peers?
QUESTION 6: The Hippocratic Oath states that in any medical treatment the physician has the primary obligation to "First Do No Harm". Since circumcision destroys important erogenous tissue and a vital protective covering of the penis - how can doctors performing circumcisions claim that they are working in accordance with the Medical Code of Ethics? The American Academy of Pediatrics acknowledged that the foreskin is important and is required for life. Medical organizations around the world also agree with this fact.
OTHER QUESTIONS YOU CAN ASK ADVOCATES OF CIRCUMCISION REGARDING THE PURPOSE OF ETHICAL MEDICAL PROCEDURES SUCH AS THE PURPOSE OF SURGERY.
Should not the purpose of surgery and any medical treatment be to help preserve parts of the human body as long as possible - or is it to amputate normal and vital body parts of non-consenting individuals?
Should not the professional ethics of doctors dictate that their primary concern be to protect the interests of their patients - or is it to fulfill the wishes of parents?
Would doctors perform female circumcisions if they were not specifically identified as criminal assaults upon females?
Does that fact that a practice has continued for decades legitimize the continuation of such a practice ? Or should there be a medical necessity for the practice?
Are medical procedures performed because there may be "potential medical benefits" as claimed by advocates of circumcision, or should there be "proven medical benefits"?
If male circumcision is such a beneficial procedure as we are led to believe then why do not masses of intact males (nearly 85%) rush to avail themselves of this surgery?
If circumcised males do not suffer emotionally or resent their circumcision, why are so many circumcised males (along with other concerned individuals) who see themselves harmed by circumcision, demanding an end to this dehumanizing and barbaric procedure?
If circumcision is a legitimate and ethical medical procedure, why is there so much opposition to it?
Why during the past decade, have thousands of males undergone painstaking foreskin restoration procedures which require years of hard work in order to recreate a facsimile of the amputated foreskin? Those who have restored have expressed delight in the return of sensitivity as well as a feeling of wholeness. They discovered the value of the foreskin which intact males enjoy. Intact males are horrified to hear the myths that there is no value to having a foreskin, and are appalled at the ignorance of people who make this claim.
Advocates of circumcision like to indicate that males should be circumcised as infants because they may be glad they are circumcised as adults and would regret it if left intact. It is easy to see that the option for any uncircumcised male is available, but what about adult males who are unhappy about their unwanted circumcision? What are they to do? (The fact is males who have undergone the restoration process will never recover the sensations experienced by intact males. In most situations the fenulum was also destroyed and scar tissue which remains has little or no sensation.)
Is it a legitimate practice to amputate normal, healthy and vital body parts on non consenting individuals because it may someday prevent a disease or condition? If so - how many body parts of children should parents be permitted to amputate in order to prevent future problems? How far do we extend this lunacy?
Where in any medical code of ethics is surgery recommended to facilitate hygiene?
The myths of preventing Urinary Tract Infections, Penile Cancer, Cancer of the cervix, HIV and STD etc. will be covered in other sections of this web site or will be referred to links to other web sites where these topics are covered. Even if there was any validity to these claims, it would still not justify the amputation of body parts of non-consenting individuals. This is not the purpose of surgery. In special situations adults can request therapeutic or cosmetic surgery after they have been explained the risks involved.
If victims of circumcision in Canada and the USA were female, would we be discussing the pros and cons of female circumcision?
Would any female in Canada or the USA undergo circumcision for any one of the reasons currently used to promote male circumcision even if it could be proven that there may be potential benefits for it? More than a decade ago a few medical doctors in the USA circumcised females claiming benefits of the procedure. There was a public outcry against this and doctors lost their privileges to practice.
Would any female undergo circumcision of any type if it could be demonstrated that it would prevent penile or prostate cancer in males? If such reasons would be unacceptable to females, then why should similar arguments be made to justify male circumcision?
Would any male dare write an article debating the "pros and cons" of female circumcision? Why are so many females adamant that males undergo a mutilating procedure which they themselves would not undergo? One must seriously question their real motive in defending male circumcision. They are demanding equality under the law - the right to choose what is in the best interests of their own body - "not the church not the state etc". - but will use every possible strategy to vehemently oppose the same rights for males. These individuals have no qualms expressing their outrage (publicly in the media - articles and letters) denouncing males who would dare defend their right to an intact body as they were created.
For many feminists equality is a "one way street" equality only for themselves. The fact is - that the term "equality" can only be meaningful when we demand equality for ALL, not just to those who happen to be born female. Those who are demanding equality for themselves should be the first to ensure that others also have similar rights - and not put up road blocks denying equality of rights for others.
Many females argue that males should be circumcised because a circumcised penis is more attractive to them. Would females, who believe that only they should decide what is in their best interests, alter their bodies if males stated that the removal of the clitoral hood would make sex more attractive for males? If not, then why the chauvinism and bigotry? Obviously what is good for the gander should be good for the goose!
Why the continuous appearance of pro-circumcision propaganda by advocates of male circumcision in medical journals, magazines, newspapers, and television reviving myths which have long been disproved and rejected by every medical organization around the world? Why the persistent attempt to promote circumcision? Obviously the sexual predators of children will make every attempt to promote harmful and destructive procedures and ignore the bodily integrity of children.
WE HAVE ASKED MANY OF THESE QUESTIONS - BUT HAVE RECEIVED FEW EXPLANATIONS
Over the years we have sent hundreds of letters to proponents of circumcision and have yet to receive one response to any of the questions presented above. We also wrote letters to medical organizations asking similar questions.
The replies were generally non specific, evasive, and with no reference to questions in the letters. When I (and others) wrote requesting clarification, the replies were often hostile, abusive, or statements to the effect that they had already responded to our concerns and that no further communication would be forth coming. Individuals involved in questionable practices resent scrutiny and hope that the trouble makers will just go away.
The Saskatchewan College of Physicians and Surgeons took measures to curtail this unnecessary surgery and sent a memo to all doctors in charge of the medical care of children instructing them that performing circumcisions for non medically indicated reasons was poor medical practice. Doctors were told that they were not obliged to perform any medical procedure merely because it was requested by parents. "You can, and should, respectfully decline to perform the procedure just as you should respectfully decline to carry out other requested medical acts that you regard to be inappropriate," they stated.
Our question to you is why the reluctance to respond to legitimate and simple questions? Anyone who defends circumcision for any reason should be prepared to provide evidence that such a procedure is ethical or valid. Legitimate and ethical procedures are not difficult to justify and do not generate the type of opposition male circumcision is receiving around the world. Nor do requests for information result in hostility and abusive replies.
Finally - it is not up to those opposed to circumcision to justify their demands. It is up to those who advocate circumcision, who need to justify their actions legally and ethically. The ridicule and vilification of opponents of circumcision (as well as victims who object to this unlawful intrusion upon their bodies) by accusing them of being radical, or belonging to special interest groups, is the only means left to these charlatans. They are unable provide explanations regarding the ethics of performing surgery for which there is no medical necessity. They have no concept of ethical medical practices and refuse to acknowledge the right of patients to refuse medical treatment even if there were alleged benefits. Moreover, if we want our children to respect our rights and dignity when we are no longer able to decide for ourselves, we should set the example by respecting their rights as children.
How can we condemn human rights abuses in other countries in the world and be so oblivious to one of the worst forms of sexual abuse in North America today, that of male circumcision?
Please email your response to