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.
We agree with the WHO and United Nations agencies that elimination of female genital alteration is a desirable goal in those communities where the practice is tied to discrimination and oppression of women.1 To the extent that any practice subjugates or endangers women, of course, its elimination is desirable. As practising physicians, we are appalled by mutilating procedures that kill and maim young women, that impair their ability to have a healthy sexual relationship, and that make childbirth dangerous. Where we disagree, respectfully, is in tactic. Indeed, in most circumstances, respect, collaboration and compromise are more effective in achieving change than censure and condemnation.2
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
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