Statistics from Altmetric.com
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.
Sitting down to write this editorial on 6 February, the Global ‘Day of Zero Tolerance’ for female genital mutilation (FGM), it feels somewhat disconcerting to be introducing a feature article arguing for a ‘compromise position’ towards a practice that is widely accepted as abhorrent. Indeed, I'm sure many of the journal's readers will share my intuitive response that there is little scope for ethical disagreement on this issue, particularly in light of recent evidence that suggests that at least 200 million girls and women alive today have been subjected to this practice.1 Here, I introduce the collection of papers on FGM in this issue, expanding briefly upon the main arguments and counter-arguments put forward. The main argument is controversial, but its airing on the pages of the journal has a clear purpose: by subjecting FGM in its many forms to ethical analysis, we will be in a stronger position to develop and tailor interventions that function to prevent indefensible practices of this kind.
Arora and Jacobs's paper has a number of complementary aims. They begin by seeking to re-characterise FGMi practices by introducing a typology based on the functional impact of the procedure. They go on to argue against prohibiting procedures that have no lasting effect on morphology or function if performed …
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