Article Text
PDFEditorial
Female genital mutilation: multiple practices, multiple wrongs
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
↵i Arora and Jacobs prefer to use the concept of ‘female genital alteration’ (FGA) on the grounds that it conflates all procedures that alter a female's external genitalia. However, given that ‘FGM’ is the most commonly adopted and accepted expression in the public sphere, I use this term in this editorial.
↵ii Note, for the avoidance of doubt, that this categorisation differs from the Type I, II, III and IV classification system endorsed by the WHO.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Female genital alteration: a compromise solution
- In defence of genital autonomy for children
- Health and human rights in contemporary humanitarian crises: is Kosovo more important than Sierra Leone?
- Population-based survey methods to quantify associations between human rights violations and health outcomes among internally displaced persons in eastern Burma
- Female genital mutilation: making the case for good practice
- Harm reduction and female genital alteration: a response to the commentaries
- Female genital mutilation: the law as it relates to children
- The impact of health education on attitudes of parents and religious leaders towards female genital mutilation
- Economic burden of female genital mutilation in 27 high-prevalence countries
- Female genital cutting in Malaysia: a mixed-methods study