Article Text
PDFFeature article
Commentary
Cutting slack and cutting corners: an ethical and pragmatic response to Arora and Jacobs’ ‘Female genital alteration: a compromise solution’
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Supplementary materials
Press release
Files in this Data Supplement:
Footnotes
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
↵i In consideration of this concern, they urge interlocutors to switch to the term ‘female genital alteration’ instead of the more common ‘female genital mutilation’. For consistency, I adopt this convention here.
Linked Articles
- Feature article
- Feature article
- The concise argument
Other content recommended for you
- Female genital alteration: a compromise solution
- Harm reduction and female genital alteration: a response to the commentaries
- In defence of genital autonomy for children
- Male or female genital cutting: why ‘health benefits’ are morally irrelevant
- A covenant with the status quo? Male circumcision and the new BMA guidance to doctors
- Rationalising circumcision: from tradition to fashion, from public health to individual freedom—critical notes on cultural persistence of the practice of genital mutilation
- Religious circumcision, invasive rites, neutrality and equality: bearing the burdens and consequences of belief
- Traditional male circumcision and the risk for HIV transmission among men: a systematic review
- Value judgment, harm, and religious liberty
- Veracity and rhetoric in paediatric medicine: a critique of Svoboda and Van Howe's response to the AAP policy on infant male circumcision