Article info
Commentary
Response to WHO
- Correspondence to Dr Kavita Shah Arora, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, MetroHealth Medical Center, 1380 Slate Court, Cleveland Heights, Ohio 44118, USA; Kavita.Shah.Arora{at}gmail.com
Citation
Response to WHO
Publication history
- Received April 8, 2016
- Accepted April 12, 2016
- First published April 28, 2016.
Online issue publication
August 24, 2016
Article Versions
- Previous version (28 April 2016).
- You are viewing the most recent version of this article.
Request permissions
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Copyright information
Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
Other content recommended for you
- Female genital alteration: a compromise solution
- Rationalising circumcision: from tradition to fashion, from public health to individual freedom—critical notes on cultural persistence of the practice of genital mutilation
- A covenant with the status quo? Male circumcision and the new BMA guidance to doctors
- Female genital cutting in Malaysia: a mixed-methods study
- Female genital mutilation: what every paediatrician should know
- Female genital mutilation: the law as it relates to children
- In defence of genital autonomy for children
- Ethical dilemmas in medical humanitarian practice: cases for reflection from Médecins Sans Frontières
- Cutting slack and cutting corners: an ethical and pragmatic response to Arora and Jacobs’ ‘Female genital alteration: a compromise solution’
- Ethics briefings