US Paeds *compromise* on female genital mutilation

But there must be a demand for the procedure otherwise it wouldn't be an issue?

I obviously don't think it should be legitamised, I think there should be huge effort put into explaining the nonsense that is female genital mutilation.

In the cases where parents are approaching medical professionals and cannot be reasoned with then I do think doctors have an ethical duty to ensure the child's safety and future sexual health.

Yes, I think most people would agree with that, scoutliam which is why the AAP are claiming this is why they want to do it. So they sound compassionate and reasonable.

But that's not the real reason. The AAP aren't compassionate and reasonable.

This isn't going to save any children.

In my experience, immigrants to America tend towards absorbing and idolising American culture (and doctors). They don't tend to retain their culture in the same way as immigrants to the UK might - partly because of the difficulty of immigrating into the US.

Formula milk, for example is considered prestigious in certain immigrant groups because it's seen as 'American'.

I suspect many of the immigrants in question would accept that 'No, we don't do this in America.' The ones who don't accept that will go underground and do it 'properly' their way.

All this is doing is legitimising FGM and showing immigrants that it can be 'American.'

You see I'm in two minds about this,
I agree that it's barbaric and should be stopped but it is a fact of life for too many children.

Until, as SGB says, there is enough public health education within cultures that demand it, allowing a shift against the practice, these children should be protected physically.

The effects of female circumcision in particular can be horrific, so I think there is an argument for a sterile, safer minor incision, obviously only in the case where the parents are going to have the procedure done no matter what.

Yes, male circumcision is widespread here. I questioned it when DS was born and the pediatrician assured me it was the right way to go and in the haze that you're in directly after childbirth, I agreed. Now I wish I hadn't.

This latest development is shocking.

Thediaryofanobody, there are possible long term medical problems of male circumcision.

More common risks include infection, haemorrhage, loss of sensation and scarring but circumcision complications can (albeit not commonly) include urinary problems, impotence and long term pain. There are also all the risks of surgery, anaesthesia reaction etc.

Babies die from circumcision complications every year. Usually from infection or undiagnosed bleeding disorders.

Solidgold I agree with you on that I just don't understand why in this day and age such bullshit like religious reasons are still tolerated when it comes to boys, when the majority of society would be disgusted at hearing about young girls being circumcised.

Before anyone starts I know there are no long term medical problems stemming from male circumcision like there is compared to female but it is still mutilation.

Fucking hell thats shocking!!!
Surely in such a litigation nation such as the US Drs would be terrified of doing such a thing in case the girls sued when older?

So utterly barbaric it makes me sick to my stomach.

I think the 'well meaning thinking' is a huge smokescreen here, sadly.

Actually, this is probably the only feminist issue where a 'what about the mens?' would be useful. Because circumcision is barbaric, superstitious bullshit and the fact that it is generally a little bit less physically harmful to cut off a foreskin than to excise a clitoris does NOT make cutting off foreskins a good thing to do.
The mutilation of children's genitals is sick and wrong and should be stopped and prosecuted if it happens.
I can see the well-meaning thinking behind this - that it's better to minimise the cutting and do it under sterile surgical conditions than to have some demented witch doctor do it with a rusty breadknife, but there needs to be far more campaigning against any non-medically-required cutting of children's genitals.

I think the problem is, Xenia that it is unspecified. I've heard it described in several different ways as a pinprick, a nick or a cut. But the basic principle is that blood is drawn /from the clitoris/ itself. A worry is that doctors themselves won't know exactly what it entails.

Dr. Friedman Ross said, ?If you medicalize it and say it?s permissible, is there a possibility that some people will misunderstand it and go beyond a nick? Yes.?

from New York Times

In the UK FMG is illegal. WE have local girls in schools who take 20 mins in the loo just to urinate because of having had the operation abroad. Teachers have to to be told be aware of that rather than just telling them off for taking ages.

What is the practice which the US people seem to be allowing? What technically do they do to the clitoris?

invention of breakfast cereals a good thing though

There was a film wasn't there about kellogg

it was all a bit odd

It became popular following Dr Kellogg's recommendations. He was an utter nutjob who thought it would prevent boys from masturbating. Almost all boys were circumcised up until recently in the US but the rates have been dropping over the last decade or so, thankfully.

Yes it's the money driving this isn't it.

I wonder how circumcision bacame a cultural norm in america. Is it so throughout the country or are some bits different?

sadly I am sure you are all right about the financial motivation.
religion and capitalism both exploiting each other....

So there is a cultural practice of circumcision in america, not just amongst communities where you'd expect to find it?

been ignorant of such practises going on outside africa, the east nowadays. hope its illegal here in any form.

oh surprise surprise it's all about money.

Money talks, they won't be performing these procedures for free.

"Circumcision (male) is too good a money spinner for their members, so they want to continue promoting it as acceptable if there are cultural reasons. Doing the same thing to baby girls fits with that logic."

Oh gods, I hadn't thought of that, Carmen - that does make a lot of sense. I couldn't get OVER the fact that most baby boys are circumcised over here, 'just because.' It seemed so bizarre to me. And female friends, american ones, who insist they'd be 'grossed out' by an uncircumcised man, because 'it's not as clean' made me a bit [hmmm] - my reaction was "well don't sleep with men who don't know how to wash, maybe?" but I don't think they got it.

Unnecessary medical procedures to make money. Ugh. The NHS isn't perfect but at least you're protected from that guff.

This is the actual AAP policy statement for those who find this hard to believe. It is as bad as it sounds

This is horrific. I learned about it yesterday.

All this can do is legitimise FGM.

I suspect this has something to do with the fact the CDC is reconsidering their position on male circumcision at the moment and the AAP want to legitimise both male and female circumcision.

Circumcision (male) is too good a money spinner for their members, so they want to continue promoting it as acceptable if there are cultural reasons. Doing the same thing to baby girls fits with that logic.

The AAP is sick. They happily accept funding from Nestle and other formula companies whilst giving lip service to 'breast is best.'

The US really needs an independent body, rather than ACOG and AAP which give non-evidence based guidelines that operate in the financial interest of their own members.