News Archive

More Good News—Second Saskatchewan Memo (+ Radio Update)

From: J. Steven Svoboda
Date: 13 Oct 2002
Time: 15:32:46

Comments

Before moving to the last piece of recent fantastic news, first, a quick radio update: My appearance on WLW Cincinnati on Thursday went well. I devoted significant time to a discussion of the importance of genital integrity and also delved into other men's issues such as facilitating men's participation in parenting and combatting paternity fraud. Things went so well that I have been invited back to speak on the Scott Sloan Show at 5 PM EDT this Monday on WLW's sister station, WSPD 1370 AM in Toledo, Ohio. Again genital integrity will a principal focus of my time on the air. Unfortunately there does not appear to be an Internet streaming broadcast by this station.

As if the oodles of positive developments recently aren't enough, here's some further cause for rejoicing: The Saskatchewan medical licensing authority has issued a second memorandum to physicians in that province which is extremely favorable to opponents of circumcision. This second memo was issued on May 7, although its existence and contents only recently became known to the intactivist movement. This memorandum followed on the heels of the similarly very favorable memo issued by the same authority on February 20, warning physicians that circumcision is not a recommended procedure and that physicians are under no obligation to perform any procedure for which there are not valid medical indications. Presumably, these successes are at least in part due to the tireless and impressive campaign waged by dedicated Canadian activists.

The May 7 memo, like the earlier one, was issued by College of Physicians and Surgeons Registrar Dr. D.A. Kendel. Both memos can be viewed in their entirety at www.courtchallenge.com/letters/skcoll2.html. This is so good I can't resist quoting extensively from the text:

When physicians receive such requests, it is important that physicians take ample time to gain an understanding of the basis for the request, to provide accurate detailed information to parents about the potential benefits, risks and alternatives, and to gauge their understanding of that information. If parents persistently request circumcision of a newborn male infant after a thorough dialogue about benefits, risks and alternatives, a physician is not obligated to perform the procedure if he/she does not regard the procedure to be medically indicated and appropriate.

*******************************

It is unfortunate to consider that surgery, which is not without risk, might be undertaken on an infant just to ensure that he "looks like his dad." Most physicians would consider it quite unethical to perform facial plastic surgery at the request of parents to make a child look more like his dad. However as a profession, we've often acquiesced to parental requests for circumcision based on nothing more substantive than this same logic.

********************

This is the conclusion of this remarkable memo:

We would recommend that physicians take heed of a profound rise in activity by citizen groups that very vigorously oppose infant male circumcision, and characterize it as unwarranted mutilating surgery.

In many countries including Canada, these citizen groups are gaining a higher profile and more credibility among the general public. They are bringing to light new evidence that the male prepuce may play an important physiological and psychological role in adult male function, which has to date been largely ignored in any consideration of harm associated with infant male circumcision. As a consequence of the public awareness raised by these groups, a growing number of adult males and/or their parents are now expressing strong resentment against physicians who performed infant male circumcision many years ago at their request. The retroactive anger toward these physicians is generally based upon arguments that parents were given woefully inadequate information about potential adverse impact on adult male function, and inadequate information about normal infant penile development and hygiene.

Whether this growing backlash against physicians does or does not generate lawsuits, it is certainly making life somewhat unpleasant for physicians who are perceived by their former patients as having been much too casual in their decision to perform infant male circumcision.

While the College's primary mandate is public protection, we do encourage physicians to give careful thought to the downstream risks they may incur by taking an inappropriately casual approach to infant male circumcision driven exclusively by parental preference without valid medical indication for the procedure.

If members do have any unresolved questions or concerns about this issue, we would be pleased to respond to individual requests for clarification.

Steven