Ontario boy dies after complications from circumcision

A one-week-old Ontario infant died from complications after undergoing a circumcision in a provincial hospital. The baby, whose name has been withheld by the parents, passed away after his kidneys became enlarged to seven times their normal size. The child was born at an unidentified Ontario hospital and the doctors said that he was born sometime in the last three years and the family wants to keep it anonymous. According to the Pediatric Child Health article, the boy was bottle-fed and was reported to be doing well when he was circumcised. Five hours later, the parents returned to their family doctor with the infant, who had become irritable and had blue discoloration below the belly button. Doctors noticed the discoloration and slight swelling of the penis, but sent the child home. Fourteen hours after the circumcision, according to the parents, the child was taken to another hospital where doctors noted he was extremely irritable with marked swelling of the penis and bruising to the scrotum. The child was then transferred to a pediatric centre, where his bladder was diagnosed, and found that it was even or eight times its normal size. If the Plastic Bell had been taken off five hours after he got there, he would be alive, said Doctors. The childs death was attributed to septic shock an overwhelming infection, leading to multi-organ failure. When the parents were asked about the reason of circumcision they said that it was their religious practice and that they cant ignore it. We have our rights to follow our own religious practices, said the parents. When the case was taken to the court, the parents accused the doctors for carrying out a circumcision on a week-old child that led to medical complications and death of the child. The doctor was acquitted, however, and prosecutors said they won't appeal. As this was a Jews child, the leader of the Jews called the ruling "unprecedented and insensitive," urging the country's parliament to clarify the legal situation "to protect religious freedom against attacks." After reading this case, the first thing which strikes my mind was this: Female genital circumcision is totally banned in Canada even if the procedure takes place due to religious traditions. Thus, the girls are protected against circumcision. But on the same issue, there are no

protections for the boys and infants. Muslims are still the largest religious group to circumcise boys. In Canada female circumcision is totally banned but, yet there is prevalence of male circumcision. There are yet many Muslim and Jews boys in Canada who are being circumcised on a daily basis. The main reason given for the ritual is cleanliness. I am continually confused at the seemingly endless display of problems that routine infant circumcision is supposed to cure or prevent. First it was masturbation in the Victorian era, then cancer, then HIV and now cancer again. The procedure itself does not treat any medical condition in infants and children and is therefore unethical, as removing healthy, functional tissue from an infant for no medical reason is a clear violation of the doctors oath to do no harm. Girls in this country are protected from having any part of their genitals removed or altered without medical necessity but to refuse the same protection to baby boys is sex-based discrimination. Circumcising a boy without a just reason is a clear violation of charter rights and freedoms. Although the girls of Canada are protected from circumcision, the boys are yet not protected from being the victim of circumcision. Male circumcision pits two fundamental rights against each other: Right to Bodily Integrity and Freedom of Religion. A prohibition of circumcision would seriously impede the constitutionally guaranteed Freedom of Religious Practice. From a charter perspective, the circumcision of all male offspring violates the charter rights and freedom. Just a few countries have prevalence of male circumcision, a practice that is widespread around the world -- including Canada. When we examine freedom of religion more closely, we encounter a second challenge: the constitution protects not only the freedom to choose one's religion but also the parental right to educate and raise their children according to their religious beliefs and traditions. A basic right, after all, is a basic right. Within religious communities, the controversy has picked up steam. If it resulted in authoritative statements of religious authorities, if it resulted in the freedom to choose for or against circumcision, the right of the child to bodily integrity and the right of the community to exercise freedom of religion would be reconciled. The pros and cons of circumcision have been the subject of intense debate in the

courts for decades. Proponents have focused on marginal benefits, while opponents have focused on basic human rights and more on charter of rights and freedoms. According to the Canadian Department of Justice, "laws are not only designed to govern our conduct: they are also intended to give effect to social policies... Another goal of the law is fairness. This means that the law should recognize and protect certain basic individual rights and freedoms, such as liberty and equality. In a democratic society like Canada, laws are not carved in stone, but must reflect the changing needs of society. Those who perform infant circumcision for ritual, cultural, or social reasons must show justification for interfering with the normal development of a child's body. Circumcision of male infants is a clear violation of the rights guaranteed to all persons by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Furthermore, the practice contravenes human rights legislation on provincial and international levels. Infant circumcision is also a violation of the childs rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically Article 7: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person, and Article 15: Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.