This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Community Corner

Violation of Children's Rights

Violation of Children’s Rights

Although Children’s basic human rights to physical integrity and self-determination are generally acknowledged, children are often stripped of these rights in regards to medical procedures. Parents can give consent on behalf of their child as long as they are both in agreement. In most cases, the child has no way to voice his/her opinion. The only person who can take complete power from the parents is a professional who disagrees with their decision and in which case should appeal to the court (Knott). But this does not ensure the child’s wishes will be respected.

Instead of waiting until the child can comprehend the life-long ramifications of an unnecessary operation, parents can legally alter a human being’s body unless he/she is considered Gillick competent, or mature enough to make decisions. Gillick Competence is naturally controversial because… what constitutes competence? Flaws in Gillick competency have inspired protesters to wear pins claiming, “Under 16’s are people, not property. Reverse Gillick” (“Gillick Competency”). Gillick ultimately ensures that whoever has parental responsibility of a child is entitled to give consent on his behalf, even to unnecessary operations such as non-therapeutic circumcision. Thus, children can become subject to inalterable surgeries at their parent’s whim before they are able to understand the permanent effects, physical or psychological.

Find out what's happening in St. Clair Shoreswith free, real-time updates from Patch.

The physical effects of abusing children’s rights are obvious, but the psychological ones are more often hidden by the victim or disregarded by others. Men who were non consensually circumcised are apt to feel violated, in severe cases even mutilated or betrayed (“Position Statement”). Even if they would have ended up making the same decision later on in life, there is still a sense of violation because they did not make the decision autonomously.

Suppose a child was born with a cleft lip, which is purely cosmetic. The parents should not be able to alter that human being’s body before he can give consent. Yes, it is likely for the child to appreciate the alteration, but the underlying lack of autonomous consent is disturbing considering the fact that the operation could have easily waited until consent was feasible. On the other hand, parents of a child with a cleft palate, which is not purely cosmetic,  should be able to give consent for the child because the surgery would be a necessary medical procedure that could not be postponed.When waiting is an option it is completely absurd to allow others to give consent to the alteration of a childs body on behalf of that child, no matter how inconsequential the act may seem. Piercing an infant’s ears, for example, will obviously not result in feelings of violation, but it is rather off putting that people are allowed to put holes in someone’s ears when they could simply wait until the child is capable of  saying the words “yes earrings”. Not to say that ear piercing has to wait until the age of sixteen. Any variation of that should constitute consent, be it the child shaking his/her head yes, or smiling and reaching toward the earrings.

Find out what's happening in St. Clair Shoreswith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Even though minor issues exist, most organizations are primarily geared toward the more severe violations of children’s rights to physical integrity and self-determination such as non-therapeutic circumcision. The BMA, or British Medical Association, is calling upon organizations such as the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and the British Association of Paediatric Surgeons to increase awareness by way of producing leaflets that provide easily accessible information to parents and children.("The Law and Ethics”). The American Academy of Paediatrics works towards alerting the public of Children’s rights as well (“Position Statement”). On a more global level, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1989, attests that along with the parents, the community and government are responsible for the welfare of children. To further this convention A World Fit for Children was adopted by 180 countries, followed by A Canada Fit for Children (“Child Rights Public Awareness”). In addition to these organizations, the Human Rights Act of the United Kingdom is making an impact in the courts. No legal case pertaining to circumcision has been reported since its enactment (“The Law and Ethics”).

As for me and other ordinary people, the best way to contribute in the fight against this social injustice is to spread awareness.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?