US Paeds *compromise* on female genital mutilation

[tabouleh]

OMG

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), which essentially promotes female genital mutilation (FGM) and advocates for "federal and state laws [to] enable pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a 'ritual nick'," such as pricking or minor incisions of girls' clitorises.

Link is here.

A friend linked the above on their FB.

It is bloody shocking. From what I've seen the US obs/gyns and paeds are deeply misogynist .

Of course the rates of cicumcision in the US are far higher than in the UK so this decision may be influenced by religion.

Does anyone know for certain what the UK's medical college's stance on this is. Would hope that it would be 100% against any "compromise".

There was a film wasn't there about kellogg

it was all a bit odd

invention of breakfast cereals a good thing though

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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, 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.'

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.

This is so wrong.

It should be criminalised and parents who have this done to their girls should be deported, but have their children taken from them first.

The US should be making it very clear in the course of the lengthy immigration process that this practice is not tolerated, and the immigration process should include a medical examination of the girls, with families excluded if they have done this to the girls.

If parents approach doctors and demand this procedure, the doctors should call child protective services, imo.

Full size here.

There's an author name listed under 'Staff' at the end of the article, with an e-mail address.

I can't understand how they can admit there's evidence that the Swedish approach (criminalisation plus threat of taking children away from parents) has resulted in the abandonment of the practice among Somali immigrants to Sweden, and state that FGC is illegal in the US, yet go on to suggest some sort of 'nick' (apart altogether from the 'do no harm' oath).

Mixed messages that end up with parents thinking their misguided culture is just fine and perhaps even legal are not the answer to this problem.

This is in total contrast to the work people are doing to combat FGM in countries with a high prevalence of it.

I have some friends in the Sudan who are involved in anti-FGM work. They tour the country with diagrams and posters explaining that there is nothing wrong with their bodies as they are and that this "cutting" is actually mutilation. No mention of any 'compromises' at all.

Glad that this has provoked some outrage debate but sad that FGM is so prevalent in 2010 and horrified at the AAP's approach.

Thanks to the posters who added info about the Swedish approach.

Good points about male circumcision.

I was surprised to learn a few years ago that for many US families (non-Jewish and non-Muslim) families male circumcision is seen as the norm.

It looks like the rates are on the decrease now due to campaigns such as Intact America.

Does anyone know of any UK groups/campaigns so that we could look towards the Swedish approach - i.e. screening girls and educating immigrant communities - I am wondering about the female MP who championed investigation into forced marriages?

"Actually, this is probably the only feminist issue where a 'what about the mens?' would be useful."
I agree. Shame it's more along the lines of "What about the babies" . When I was at uni an American friend was shocked that the Brtish guy she'd just slept with was uncircumsied. Shocked.

I don't see how a cremeonial nick would work at all. Either you remove the clitoris so she cannot have orgasms that way or at all and/or sew her up and cut off the bits around so no one else can get at her which is what it's all about in its various degrees or you don't. If you removed a token flap of skin that's not going to satisfy anyone. It would be like drawing a little bit of blood on the foreskin of a baby boy and not removing the skin and then saying there it's done.

I agree that there should be absolutely no compromise on this kind of mutilation of children, both female and male.

If you are going to try and stamp down on FGM, you do in my view also need to stamp down on male circumcision as well. And the route of both of these evils is religion.

No, not religion, misogyny. And fear. Mixed with poverty and ignorance. Women always come out worst from that perfect storm.

Who wants to write to the (apparent) author of the paper, [email protected]?

OK, misogyny allied with religion in the FGM case. Religion primarily with male circumcision.

Mind you it would be like pissing against the wind to have the whole tradition of male circumcision overturned, so would cloud the argument trying to argue both male and female circumcision together, especially when FGM is so hideously damaging.

Utterly chilled at Xenia's refereces to schoolgirls taking 20 minutes in the loo. Poor bloody kids

It should be prosecuted and in a high profile way. None of this shit about keeping in mind cultural differences.

What I find so strange is the idea that offering the 'nick' would prevent backstreet genital mutilation procedures. I think that a very high profile prosecution of such backstreet mutilation would have a much quicker effect.

Why does the AAP have little or no faith in the ability of the police and prosecutors to deal with this crime? YYY -- high profile prosecutions, having children taken away, and deportation would do the trick very fast.

It takes a lot of effort to immigrate legally into the US, and even the ignorant, backward people who would contemplate doing this to their daughters would think twice if there were going to be tough consequences that involved their immigration and legal parenthood status.