Sourced From
"eye" - 07.29.04 http://www.eye.net/eye/issue/issue_07.29.04/op/editorial.html
Imagine there's a religion that believes in burning children with a red-hot iron. They believe their god commands them to take a two-week-old child and brand a circle into the base of their spine using an iron, to show their loyalty and so followers will recognize each other. In the olden days, the kid would scream and have a third-degree burn that hurt like a mofo; now, modern members of the sect have the procedure done with an anaesthetic. But there's still pain involved, and occassionally the burns become infected and cause nerve damage and, very occasionally, one of these infections causes a death. But all of the children's bodies have been permanently altered without their consent.
How long would it be before the Sun started printing BURNED TOTS IN WACKO SECT SHOCK stories? We give it a week, tops. And while we'd quail at their lurid headlines, we'd be more horrified by the story. The thought of deliberately injuring an infant is monstrous.
So why is infant male circumcision still legal?
About a month ago, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia took a stand against the practice, calling it "a non-therapeutic and medically unnecessary intervention." The statement -- available at www.cpsbc.bc.ca -- rightly points out that a baby cannot consent and that "proxy consent by parents for a non-therapeutic procedure is debatable."
Circumcision is done for a variety of reasons, none of them persuasive: there's the one relating to Yahweh or Allah thinking it's a good idea, and there was a time when atheists and Christians piled on the bandwagon, due to the health benefits snipping was thought to confer -- deterring masturbation primary among them in Victorian times. More recently, it was thought that circumcision was cleaner, as though foreskins were impossibly hard to wash. But if you can keep a baby's bum clean, and eventually teach it how to clean its own, you can definitely handle a foreskin -- and consider that 2 to 4 per cent of circumcisions result in infections and complications, many because the head of the penis is exposed to bacteria the foreskin's meant to protect it from. Some people prefer to perform oral sex on a cut dick, because the foreskin traps fluids and scents they find yucky. But would they cut off their infant daughter's labia and clitoral hood for reasons of taste? (in all senses of the word). Certainly not.
Then there are the circumcised men who want their sons snipped so they'll look alike. But be honest now, how much time did you really spend with your dad comparing dicks? Shouldn't you be worried if you take off your pants and your partner's comment is, "Gee, you really look like your dad!"
Still, when circumcision was considered healthier, it made the practice understandable; after all, we make our children get occasionally painful vaccinations for health reasons. However, since those health benefits don't exist -- as studies convincingly show -- the grounds for giving male babies the snip pretty much evaporate for anyone without a strong religious reason.
And that's the thrust of the College's statement, and with it, they toss the religious hot potato into the air again, commenting mildly, "If for religious or cultural reasons you decide to perform an infant male circumcision, ensure that your skills are current."
Why, though? Why do religious parents get a free pass? People often try to do all kinds of crappy things to their kids in the name of religion: remember the Church of God in Aylmer, Ontario? They believed that the Bible told them to discipline their children by striking them with an object, like a rod or belt. The Children's Aid Society took away their kids and the sect disbanded and fled the country.
Admit it: you judged them, just like you'd judge the imaginary red-hot-poker-wielding sect in our first paragraph. And so you should. Canadian law does not and should not make exceptions for religious conviction; it's why we don't recognize polygamy, for instance, although it's advocated by a number of religions.
It should be the same with circumcision. Everyone gets upset about female genital mutilation -- and they should, it's a barbaric practice -- and no Canadian doctor is allowed to perform it. What's the difference (except almost always a matter of degree)?
There are probably a lot of guys reading this article thinking, "Yeah, I was circumcised, and it was no big deal." Maybe not. (Though who knows? Most reports show diminished sensitivity in the circumcised penis and any uncut guy will tell you he's had many hours of pleasure fiddling with his foreskin.) But that's missing the point. Doing a permanent, unnecessary medical procedure on an unconsenting person is wrong. And neither religion nor family tradition is any excuse.