News

CHHRP Launches Canadian Harm Survey

Males of any age, who were circumcised in Canada, are invited to share their experiences regarding psychological harm or harm to their sexual health that may have resulted from circumcision. The results of this survey will assist the Children’s Health & Human Rights Partnership in better understanding the possible consequences of circumcision on male health and sexuality.

The survey is open until April 30, 2017. Please share this information widely and encourage males of all ages, who were circumcised in Canada, to participate.

To access the survey, click HERE or the image below.

 

 

Circumcision: Changing the Conversation

“Filmed at the “Healthy Mothers & Healthy Babies Conference” (March 12/16 ) Kira Antinuk RN and Dr. Christopher Guest presented “”A Historical and Medical Critique of Circumcision / Intact Babies: Avoiding Clinical Errors.”” 


The format of this presentation was unusual, Kira played a pregnant woman visiting her doctor (Christopher) who answered questions about normal genital anatomy, and explained what circumcision was.

The session was well attended by 80+ interested people.

A delayed start to the event resulted in an abbreviated ending, not giving enough time for their final points about human rights, but there was time for several questions, during which John Geisheker of ‘Doctors Opposing Circumcision’ was able to explain how many boys are damaged annually in the US by forced premature retraction.

From my vantage point, on a platform at the back of the hall filming the stage, I was able to see the audience (mostly women) were paying rapt attention and responded warmly with applause.

~James Loewen

 

Feminist and Medical Critiques of Circumcision at SFU Advocacy for Men & Boys

This event took place on Wednesday, March 9th at 6:30 PM PST at the SFU Harbour Centre, Hastings St, Vancouver, British Columbia.

“Last night a fully engaged and enthusiastic audience (full house) greeted feminist nurse Kira Antinuk and Dr. Christopher Guest for their presentations hosted by Simon Fraser University’s Advocacy for Men & Boys.

I was very pleased to be able to record this event and look forward to posting the videos soon so all can see these amazing lectures!” ~ James Loewen

https://www.facebook.com/events/1572681936389254/permalink/1572961283027986/

*Free Admission*

Join SFU Advocacy For Men & Boys for a two-part lecture + Q&A presented by two medical experts on male infant circumcision, a highly controversial topic in North America. For the first part of the lecture, Dr. Christopher Guest will present a medical critique on the practice. Some points that he will discuss are the historical origins, worldwide trends in circumcision, and an examination of the medical claims in support of circumcision. For the second part, Feminist nurse Kira Antinuk will be giving a feminist critique and her perspective on circumcision as well as her 13-year long involvement in the movement to promote equal genital autonomy for all children.

“A Feminist Nursing Critique of Circumcision”
SPEAKER: Kira Antinuk, RN, BScN
Historically, there have been few feminists who have advocated for the genital integrity rights of all children, yet a growing and diverse movement of people is challenging the frameworks in which we consider genital cutting in our society.

“A Historical and Medical Critique of Circumcision”
SPEAKER: Dr. Christopher Guest, M.D., F.R.C.P.C.
Male circumcision is a complex issue. Are health care providers providing current, evidence-based information which takes into account their professional ethical responsibilities?

Event made possible by the Children’s Health & Human Rights Partnership – http://chhrp.org/

Hosted by SFU Advocacy For Men & Boys – http://www.sfuamb.com/

Canadian Children’s Rights Group Questions New Circumcision Policy

VICTORIA, BRITISH COLUMBIA–(Sept. 9, 2015) – A just released policy on infant male circumcision by the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) was judged today by the Children’s Health & Human Rights Partnership (CHHRP) to be a step in the right direction, but was “nevertheless ‘predictably inadequate’ with respect to several specific issues.”

CHHRP Medical Director Dr. Christopher Guest, MD, FRCPC, said the new policy is consistent with international paediatric associations that affirm infant boys should not have their healthy foreskins routinely removed.

Citing the position of the CPS that recognizes the unique sensory functions of the male foreskin, Dr. Guest asserted that, “A growing number of medical associations now recognize that an intact penis with a foreskin contributes to sexual pleasure for the male and his partner.” According to Guest, in 2010 the Royal Dutch Medical Association concluded, “the foreskin is a complex erotogenic structure that plays an important role in the mechanical function of the penis during sexual acts.”

“Circumcision alters the structure of the penis, which inevitably alters function. Long term harm to men from infant circumcision has never been studied” Guest said. Despite this, Guest says men are reporting long-term adverse consequences at the Canadian-based online Global Survey of Circumcision Harm. Although the CPS failed to include it, Guest says scientific evidence has emerged that supports these men’s claims. In 2011, Dr. Morten Frisch published findings in the International Journal of Epidemiology showing that in Denmark, where circumcision is rare, ‘circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in their female partners, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia [difficult or painful sexual intercourse] and a sense of incomplete needs fulfilment.’

Guest faulted the CPS for inclusion of “convenient untruths,” most notably a discussion of HIV being lower in circumcised men. He says such claims are based on methodologically weak African trials, which contradict global HIV trends, for example the United States, which has a high circumcision rate, yet a significantly higher rate of HIV infection than Sweden and Japan where circumcision is rare. “Even if the African trials were scientifically valid, they cannot be used to justify infant circumcision because infants are not sexually active persons,” he said. “Soap and water and safer sex practices, including condoms, can prevent disease.”

According to Guest, the CPS failed to include crucial information from a 2012 report by the International NGO Council on Violence Against Children, which CHHRP sent to the CPS in 2014. The report stated that “non-consensual, non-therapeutic circumcision of boys, whatever the circumstances, constitutes a gross violation of their rights, including the right to physical integrity, to freedom of thought and religion and to protection from physical and mental violence.”

“Medical associations in the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany, and others confirm that there is no justification for circumcising infants in the absence of medical urgency,” Guest stated. “The CPS is out of step with those medical associations, who also urge an end to the practice due to ethical and human rights concerns.”

Although the CPS concluded that routine infant circumcision is not recommended, and that the benefits of the surgery do not outweigh the risks (contrary to a 2012 claim by the American Academy of Pediatrics), Guest contends that the position statement is still insufficient due to its ambiguity in leaving the decision up to parents. “Parents are not physicians. They do not have the medical knowledge to decide if surgery is medically indicated for their child,” Guest asserted. He went on to say that, “Leaving a decision about medically unnecessary surgery up to parents is an ethical failure on the CPS’ part. Where else in medicine do physicians place this burden on parents, in order to obviate their own professional responsibility?”

“Preservation of bodily integrity is a basic and universal human right that the CPS must articulate clearly in future statements,” Guest said. “We Canadians, as well as our institutions and government, have an obligation to protect that right for all citizens, regardless of gender or age.”

The Children’s Health & Human Rights Partnership was established in 2012 as a partnership of professionals in the fields of medicine, ethics, and law to further public education regarding non-therapeutic genital surgery on Canadian children.

 

CHHRP’s Follow Up letter to the Canadian Paediatric Society Male Infant Circumcision Policy Committee, Feb. 10, 2015

10 February 2015

Canadian Paediatric Society
2305 St. Laurent Blvd
Ottawa, ON K1G 4J8
Attn: Fetus and Newborn Committee

cc. Dr. Robert Moriartey, MD, Canadian Paediatric Society President

 

Dear Colleagues,

As we await the Canadian Paediatric Society’s expected policy statement on neonatal circumcision, we wish to inform you of an important recent development.

You are no doubt aware that in December 2014 the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) inexplicably decided that they needed to draft recommendations to inform expectant parents about the benefits and risks of newborn circumcision, as well as offering guidance to adolescent and adult males about the procedure. The draft was titled “Recommendations for Providers Counseling Male Patients and Parents Regarding Male Circumcision and the Prevention of HIV Infection, STIs, and other Health Outcomes”.

To its credit, the CDC opened the draft recommendations to public comment for a period of 45-days, terminating on 16 January 2015.

What you may not be aware of is the following:

    1. The CDC received approximately 2,840 comments. Among the comments received from individuals and organizations, 97% opposed the CDC recommendations. Only 2% of comments expressed support, and 1% could be considered neutral. The comments are logged here: http://cdc.intactivist.net 
    2. Some of the more salient responses from ethicists, attorneys and human rights NGOs are found here: http://www.circinfo.org/Centers_for_Disease_Control.html 
    3. The Children’s Health & Human Rights Partnership provided its comments, which we provide to you as an attachment to this letter and may also be found here:
      http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=CDC-2014-0012-1138 
    4. The CDC requested the highly-respected U.S. pediatrician Robert S. Van Howe, M.D. to provide a critique of the recommendations. Dr. Van Howe has now submitted his 208-page critique— containing 1,351 references—which can be reviewed here:
      https://www.academia.edu/10553782

We presume that the CPS is still formulating its new statement on this matter and wanted to bring these matters to your attention in a timely manner.

In unity for the children,

Dr. Christopher L. Guest, MD, FRCPC Medical Director

Kira Antinuk, RN, BScN Nursing Director

Tim Hammond Outreach Director

David Saving Technical Director

Dr. Arif Bhimji, MD Advisory Board Member

Dr. Cameron Bowman, MD, FRCSC Advisory Board Member

Dr. Kaleb Montgomery, HBSc, DTCM Advisory Board Member

Jessica Forbes, RM Advisory Board Member

Kerstin Helén, RN, RM, BScN Advisory Board Member

Tony Chacon, RN, BSN, MN(c) Advisory Board Member

Geoffrey T. Falk, BSc, MA Advisory Board Member

Tracy Cassels, BA, MA, PhD(c) Advisory Board Member

Dr. Ali A. Rizvi, MD Advisory Board Member

Jennifer Pinch, RN, BScN, CD(DONA) Advisory Board Member

 

 

Attachment

PUBLIC COMMENTS PROVIDED BY
THE CHILDREN’S HEALTH & HUMAN RIGHTS PARTNERSHIP ON DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS BY
THE U.S. CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL REGARDING MALE CIRCUMCISION

The Children’s Health & Human Rights Partnership is Canada’s premiere not-for-profit group of health care professionals and scholars devoted to protecting the genital health and human rights of Canada’s male, female, and intersex children. We realize that CDC recommendations can influence some Canadians and are pleased to provide public comment on your draft recommendations concerning male circumcision.

In Canada, the practice of infant circumcision was once as widespread as it is now in the U.S. For the past several decades, however, none of our provinces or private health plans pay for infant circumcision, since there is no medical necessity to perform surgery on a newborn male’s healthy penis. That’s why hospital circumcision rates here are less than 10%, compared to the U.S. national average of around 50%.

Like parents in most of the world, we don’t view our newborn sons’ genitals as being somehow defective and in need of immediate surgical improvement. We trust in our parental abilities to teach our children proper hygienic behaviours as well as adoption of safer sex practices to protect themselves from sexually transmitted infections, all while still enjoying intact genitals.

That’s why the vast majority of our intact boys and men do not suffer the laundry list of maladies described in your draft recommendations.

We invite you to review the attached report from the International NGO Council on Violence against Children (2012), which states, “…non-consensual, non-therapeutic circumcision of boys, whatever the circumstances, constitutes a gross violation of their rights, including the right to physical integrity, to freedom of thought and religion and to protection from physical and mental violence” (p. 22). The report also notes, “The WHO review quoted three randomized controlled trials suggesting that circumcision reduces the risk of acquiring HIV infection in males. But this potential health benefit does not override a child’s right to give informed consent to the practice. The decision to undertake circumcision for these reasons can be deferred to a time where the risk is relevant and the child is old enough to choose and consent for himself” (p. 22).

Canadians are very much like Americans in many respects, except that Canada (like every other nation in the world except the U.S.) has ratified the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 24 of the Convention calls on signatory nations to protect their children from traditional practices prejudicial to their health and human rights. Infant circumcision exposes children to unnecessary risk and, by the CDC’s own admission, is a social custom and therefore a traditional practice covered in the Convention.

We call on the CDC to revise its recommendations that appear to condone the practice of infant circumcision and to include unequivocal language urging health professionals to reassure parents that the vast majority of intact men and boys do not suffer foreskin ailments and that in those rare occasions when a medical problem might arise during childhood, it can be conservatively treated medically, and only as a last resort surgically.

They can also offer reassurance that while parents are responsible for making a myriad of decisions on behalf of their child (vaccinations, nutrition, etc), circumcision is not one they need concern themselves with. Indeed, such an intimate personal decision is best left to each individual male to make when he is of an age to have his own reasons (if any), and to understand and give fully informed consent. To usurp such a decision is not within a parent’s responsibilities and is a violation of their child’s inherent human rights.

CPS Policy Media Fund success!

A huge thank you to everyone for your thoughtful donations towards our successful Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) media response campaign. Special mention to George Vuckovic for his extra awesome donation!

All funds raised during this campaign have been earmarked toward paying for a targeted media response to the anticipated CPS policy revision.

Since 2012, CHHRP has built a reputation as an organization of reputable, respected health care and science professionals. Our Advisory Board, Board of Directors, and Partners work across Canada in positions of authority and responsibility. Your support means that we can have an impact at higher and broader levels.

Truthfully, we could not do this work without you. We, and the children we speak for, deeply appreciate your generosity.

In unity for the children,

THANK YOU!

 

CHHRP responds to the CDC

The Children’s Health & Human Rights Partnership is Canada’s premiere not-for-profit group of health care professionals and scholars devoted to protecting the genital health and human rights of Canada’s male, female, and intersex children. We realize that CDC recommendations can influence some Canadians and are pleased to provide public comment on your draft recommendations concerning male circumcision.

In Canada, the practice of infant circumcision was once as widespread as it is now in the U.S. For the past several decades, however, none of our provinces or private health plans pay for infant circumcision, since there is no medical necessity to perform surgery on a newborn male’s healthy penis. That’s why hospital circumcision rates here are less than 10%, compared to the U.S. national average of around 50%.

Like parents in most of the world, we don’t view our newborn sons’ genitals as being somehow defective and in need of immediate surgical improvement. We trust in our parental abilities to teach our children proper hygienic behaviours as well as adoption of safer sex practices to protect themselves from sexually transmitted infections, all while still enjoying intact genitals.

That’s why the vast majority of our intact boys and men do not suffer the laundry list of maladies described in your draft recommendations.

We invite you to review the attached report from the International NGO Council on Violence against Children (2012), which states, “…non-consensual, non-therapeutic circumcision of boys, whatever the circumstances, constitutes a gross violation of their rights, including the right to physical integrity, to freedom of thought and religion and to protection from physical and mental violence” (p. 22). The report also notes, “The WHO review quoted three randomized controlled trials suggesting that circumcision reduces the risk of acquiring HIV infection in males. But this potential health benefit does not override a child?s right to give informed consent to the practice. The decision to undertake circumcision for these reasons can be deferred to a time where the risk is relevant and the child is old enough to choose and consent for himself” (p. 22).

Canadians are very much like Americans in many respects, except that Canada (like every other nation in the world except the U.S.) has ratified the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 24 of the Convention calls on signatory nations to protect their children from traditional practices prejudicial to their health and human rights. Infant circumcision exposes children to unnecessary risk and, by the CDC’s own admission, is a social custom and therefore a traditional practice covered in the Convention.

We call on the CDC to revise its recommendations that appear to condone the practice of infant circumcision and to include unequivocal language urging health professionals to reassure parents that the vast majority of intact men and boys do not suffer foreskin ailments and that in those rare occasions when a medical problem might arise during childhood, it can be conservatively treated medically, and only as a last resort surgically.

They can also offer reassurance that while parents are responsible for making a myriad of decisions on behalf of their child (vaccinations, nutrition, etc), circumcision is not one they need concern themselves with. Indeed, such an intimate personal decision is best left to each individual male to make when he is of an age to have his own reasons (if any), and to understand and give fully informed consent. To usurp such a decision is not within a parent’s responsibilities and is a violation of their child’s inherent human rights.

On behalf of the Board of Directors and Advisory Board,
Dr. Christopher Guest, MD, FRCPC

Promoting children’s health & human rights via education

The Children’s Health & Human Rights Partnership is initiating a Media Fund. Our first project involves raising $1500 by November 30th to pay for professional dissemination of CHHRP’s official response to the upcoming infant circumcision policy statement that could be released by the Canadian Paediatric Society in the coming month or two. CHHRP plans to disseminate its response to the media via Marketwire, a pricey but effective means of media outreach that will target newspaper and television outlets, with a focus on health, parenting, and social issue editors.

 

• All funds raised during this specific Indiegogo fundraiser will be earmarked toward paying for a targeted media response to the anticipated Canadian Paediatric Society policy revision.

• If we are unsuccessful in hitting our target goal for this particular media campaign, we will still mount a response. However, the more funds we raise, the bolder and louder our response will be. If we exceed out target goal, we’ll take out some VERY large advertisements and consider any other suggestions you want to send our way.

Please help us to reach our goal. Any contribution, no matter how small, is very much appreciated.

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/cps-policy-media-fund/x/3100886

CHHRP’s own Dr. Guest presented “Medical and Ethical Opposition to Male Circumcision” at 2014 Birth and Beyond Conference in London, Ontario this October.

The Children’s Health and Human Rights Partnership (CHHRP) was pleased to participate, for the third time, at the Birth and Beyond Conference in London, Ontario. Dr. Guest presented the following talk:

Medical and Ethical Opposition to Male Circumcision

This presentation included information about:

  • the historical origins of circumcision
  • worldwide trends in circumcision
  • the sexual and physiologic function of the foreskin
  • evolutionary perspectives on the foreskin
  • medicalization of circumcision during the Victorian era
  • examination of the medical claims in support of circumcision
  • circumcision and HIV transmission
  • circumcision and medical ethics
  • circumcision and human rights

You may recognize Dr. Guest from his video “Circumcision: The Whole Story” (NSFW), produced in association with the Barrie Midwives.

This is an extremely informative presentation, with rave reviews, something no health professional should miss. Be informed and get the whole story on male infant circumcision. If you would like to see this presentation come to your city please contact CHHRP at info@chhrp.org for more information.

http://www.birthandbeyondconference.ca/content/christopher-guest-2014

Letter to the Canadian Paediatric Society Male Infant Circumcision Policy Committee May 19, 2014

19 May 2014

To the members of the Canadian Paediatric Society Male Infant Circumcision Policy Committee

cc. Dr. Andrew Lynk, MD, Canadian Paediatric Society President

The Children’s Health & Human Rights Partnership (CHHRP) is Canada’s first dedicated not-for-profit partnership of medical, legal, and ethics professionals working alongside concerned citizens towards ending forced non-therapeutic genital cutting of children in Canada. Our work is in accordance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and international human rights law.

We write today to inform you of important developments surrounding the practice of infant male circumcision which should be seriously considered when formulating any future policy statements on the practice in Canada. We offer this with the hope that the Canadian Paediatric Society will take a strong stand in favour of allowing males—when there is otherwise no immediate medical need—to decide upon and consent to circumcision at an age when they can fully understand the consequences.

Such a stand would be consistent with the international movement of child protection advocates, especially paediatric and medical societies and children’s ombudspersons in Europe, who recognize this issue as an important human rights concern.

We enclose for your benefit a copy of the 2012 report from the International NGO Council on Violence against Children. This groundbreaking report identifies numerous harmful practices based on tradition, culture, religion or superstition that violate the rights of children.

While we encourage you to read the entire report for contextual reasons, we wish to draw your attention to those sections we believe are relevant to the present discussion of neonatal circumcision.

Page 7 lists general categories of rights violations based on tradition, culture, religion and superstition. It is difficult to argue that circumcision of otherwise healthy newborns is not a medical, cultural or religious tradition and that many parental motivations for requesting newborn circumcision can be considered superstitious or based on fear of the unknown, e.g., “My uncle had to be circumcised as an adult so we might as well do it to our son now” or “My son will be psychologically harmed if he doesn’t look like his circumcised father or the other boys”.

The report goes on to state (bolding is ours): “The list includes a number of practices perpetrated through false beliefs about child development and the cause and treatment of ill-health. These may stem from religious edict or belief, or from tradition or superstition or in some cases be promoted by health practitioners.”

This is the case especially in North America, where paediatric societies take ambiguous stands and fail to firmly reject any medical justification for newborn circumcision and who issue statements that ignore the functions, benefits, and natural development of the foreskin, while failing to identify the newborn’s inherent right to bodily integrity. You will take note that the practice of male circumcision is specifically identified on pages 21 and 22 as a traditional practice that violates the rights of male children (to bodily integrity). The report states that “non- consensual, non-therapeutic circumcision of boys, whatever the circumstances, constitutes a gross violation of their rights, including the right to physical integrity, to freedom of thought and religion and to protection from physical and mental violence.”

The report also recognizes that “There are now substantial established campaigns against non-therapeutic, non-consensual circumcision of boys and growing support to end it, particularly within the medical community.” The rest of the paragraph from which this excerpt was taken, we believe, is mandatory reading for any paediatric association that claims to have its child patients’ best interests at heart.

Page 47 of the report asserts that health practitioners should be encouraged to work actively to eliminate these harmful practices as parts of their codes of ethical conduct. We at CHHRP assert that this duty to child patients extends to the issuance of a neonatal circumcision policy that explicitly identifies the right of the child to physical integrity and eventual self-determination.

It has become increasingly clear that Europeans are taking seriously their pledge to protect children as well as their international treaty commitments regarding this group of vulnerable citizens. Their medical associations, child welfare agencies, and some legislative bodies reject the promotion of circumcision of otherwise healthy children, especially when such promotion is done by medical professionals and associations.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has been publicly condemned by international paediatric authorities for its shoddy 2012 statement that failed to recognize the functions of the foreskin, the medical ethics involved in non-therapeutic circumcision, and the important human rights that are violated by those who circumcise otherwise healthy children. We direct you to one such rebuke signed by 38 physicians from 16 European nations, and Canada’s own Dr. Noni MacDonald.
Source: http://intaction.org/circumcision-policy-denounced/
Full Document: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/12/peds.2012-2896.full.pdf+html

As further evidence of the cultural bias and personal and professional ignorance of AAP Task Force members on this matter, in October 2013 at the 20th Pitts Lectureship in Medical Ethics at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston, South Carolina two members of the AAP Task Force on Circumcision were asked by a member of the audience to identify the functions of the foreskin. Task Force member Dr. Michael Brady stated “I don’t think anyone knows the functions of the foreskin” and later reiterated “Nobody knows the functions of the foreskin.”

Source: http://arclaw.org/our-work/presentations/charleston-debate-marks-turning-point-movement-recognize-circumcision-human-r

It deeply concerns us to report that the bias does not end there. Dr. Andrew Freedman, one of the AAP circumcision policy task force members, when asked if he had a son and whether he had him circumcised, was quoted as saying: “Yes, I do. I circumcised him myself on my parents’ kitchen table.” We at CHHRP certainly hope the CPS has taken the necessary steps to guard against such blatant conflicts of interest amongst the members of its Male Infant Circumcision Policy Committee.
Source: http://www.thejewishweek.com/features/new-york-minute/fleshing-out-change-circumcision

We also note that much media attention has been paid recently to a recent review that attempts to equate neonatal circumcision with vaccination. Any clear-thinking individual can see the many ways in which this is a false equivalency; however, if left unchecked, this logically unsupportable notion may gain traction among the public. We hope that any future CPS statement on circumcision will refute such attempts to conflate these two practices.
Source: http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/circumcision-should-be-seen-in-the-same-light-as-childhood-vaccination- study-1.1757650#ixzz2xkx6ATBP

 

SUMMARY

Canada has always been a leader in the international arena when it comes to recognizing human rights — in many cases long before our immediate neighbours to the South. We look forward to a forthcoming update from the CPS on this topic and sincerely hope that the update will not embarrass Canadians by merely parroting the AAP statement, but will be a document that all Canadians can be proud of by progressively incorporating the important issues described in the enclosed report.

 

In unity for the children,

 

Dr. Christopher L. Guest, MD, FRCPC Medical Director

Kira Antinuk, RN, BScN Nursing Director

Tim Hammond Outreach Director

David Saving Technical Director

Dr. Arif Bhimji, MD Advisory Board Member

Dr. Cameron Bowman, MD, FRCSC Advisory Board Member

Dr. Kaleb Montgomery, HBSc, DTCM Advisory Board Member

Jessica Forbes, RM Advisory Board Member

Kerstin Helén, RN, RM, BScN Advisory Board Member

Tony Chacon, RN, BSN, MN(c) Advisory Board Member

Geoffrey T. Falk, BSc, MA Advisory Board Member

Tracy Cassels, BA, MA, PhD(c) Advisory Board Member

 

 

Copyright © 2016 Children’s Health & Human Rights Partnership