The Chief Minister of the ACT, Andrew Barr, has told the Rationalist Society of Australia that outlawing circumcision on infant boys would require a “fundamentally different” consideration of human rights, bodily autonomy and religious freedoms.
In a letter to the RSA (see letter below), Mr Barr acknowledged the “religious element” of parental beliefs on the question of protecting the rights of non-consenting boys from being subjected to irreversible and usually medically unnecessary medical interventions.
In June, the ACT government introduced the Variation in Sex Characteristics (Restricted Medical Treatment) Act to protect the rights of intersex children from being subjected to medical surgeries without their consent – a development welcomed by the RSA.
In a speech to the ACT Legislative Assembly at the time, Mr Barr said it was a “fundamental principle” for people, including children, to be involved in decisions about treatments to their bodies. The legislation, he argued, was “designed to protect the rights of people who lack the capacity to make their own decisions about treatments to their bodies.”
In a follow-up letter, RSA president Dr Meredith Doig asked Mr Barr and the territory’s health minister, Rachel Stephen-Smith, whether the ACT government would extend the same fundamental principle to protect non-consenting infant boys from circumcision.
In response, Mr Barr said the government explored human rights concerns around circumcision during the development of the Variation in Sex Characteristics (Restricted Medical Treatment) legislation, but decided there were “different rationales” at play.
“As a result of that consultation process, we concluded that the rationales for circumcision of the penis compared to the medical treatments covered by the VSC reforms were different,” he said.
“The rationales for non-essential restricted medical treatments on people with variations in sex characteristics are underpinned by normative ideas about how bodies should appear and function, and assumptions about the effects of growing up with non-normative sex characteristics.
“The rationale for circumcision of the penis is generally underpinned by parental beliefs about hygiene, family tradition and/or parental religious beliefs. Because there is a religious element to why some people seek to circumcise their children, prohibiting circumcision involves a fundamentally different consideration of human rights relating to bodily autonomy and freedom of religious practices.”
In his letter, Mr Barr said the ACT health system did not recommend the circumcision of healthy males and referred enquiring parents to their general practitioner for appropriate discussion and referral pathways.
As Dr Doig argued in her letter, circumcision of the penis is life-altering and, in some cases, leaves men scarred emotionally and psychologically.
She also argued that the procedure raises unnecessary health risks, pointing out the 2021 cases from Western Australia where a two-year-old child died and a seven-month-old ended up in intensive care.
If you want to support our work, please make a donation or become a member.
Si Gladman is Campaigns & Communications Coordinator for the Rationalist Society of Australia. He also hosts ‘The Secular Agenda’ podcast.
Letter from ACT Chief Minister Andrew Barr, 14 September 2023
Dear Dr Doig,
Thank you for your letter about infant male circumcision.
The appropriate management of infant circumcision of the penis is complex, depending on a range of factors. These include a balancing of human rights considerations, and how best to protect health.
Under Canberra Health Service’s Elective Surgery Access policy, circumcisions are excluded from ACT public waitlists unless it is clinically indicated. Circumcision of healthy males is not recommended. Parents who enquire about circumcision at birth are referred to their general practitioner for appropriate discussion and referral pathways.
We understand there are human rights concerns around circumcision, some of which were explored during the process that led to the ACT’s Variation in Sex Characteristics (VSC) (Restricted Medical Treatment) legislation.
As a result of that consultation process, we concluded that the rationales for circumcision of the penis compared to the medical treatments covered by the VSC reforms were different. The rationales for non-essential restricted medical treatments on people with variations in sex characteristics are underpinned by normative ideas about how bodies should appear and function, and assumptions about the effects of growing up with non-normative sex characteristics.
The rationale for circumcision of the penis is generally underpinned by parental beliefs about hygiene, family tradition and/or parental religious beliefs. Because there is a religious element to why some people seek to circumcise their children, prohibiting circumcision involves a fundamentally different consideration of human rights relating to bodily autonomy and freedom of religious practices.
Our government remains committed to ensuring health services in the ACT are provided safely and appropriately. If anyone has concerns about the provision of a health service in the ACT, they may make a complaint to the Health Services Commissioner at the ACT Human Rights Commission. The Health Services Commissioner is an important safeguard providing oversight of all health services in the ACT, including circumcision being provided by a health professional.
I thank you for the Society’s concern for the protection of every individual’s rights.
Yours sincerely
Andrew Barr MLA
Chief Minister