Article Text
Statistics from Altmetric.com
The position Arora and Jacobs defend regarding female genital alteration (FGA) has much to recommend it. Sanctioning a form of FGA that seeks to minimise if not eliminate harm to infants, adolescents and adult women, and at the same time show respect for cultural traditions appears to make good sense. In arguing for a de minimis procedure, the authors contend that any harm would be equivalent to that of male circumcision, a practice that is permitted by countries that have made FGA illegal. They are correct in saying that in a de minimis form, FGA could not reasonably be considered a human rights violation.
With these and other reasons that seem persuasive at first blush, why do I remain resistant to accepting this apparent solution to a public health problem that affects millions of girls and women? Two different considerations lead me to reject the proposal. The first might be dismissed as ‘merely symbolic’, but is nevertheless real. The second is deep scepticism regarding several empirical premises that underlie the authors’ position.
There is no doubt that in whatever form, FGA has its origin and purpose in controlling women. Whether it be controlling their sexual behaviour in the …
Footnotes
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Linked Articles
- Feature article
- Feature article
- Feature article
- The concise argument
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
- In defence of genital autonomy for children
- Cutting slack and cutting corners: an ethical and pragmatic response to Arora and Jacobs’ ‘Female genital alteration: a compromise solution’
- A covenant with the status quo? Male circumcision and the new BMA guidance to doctors
- The child's interests and the case for the permissibility of male infant circumcision
- Harm reduction and female genital alteration: a response to the commentaries
- Male or female genital cutting: why ‘health benefits’ are morally irrelevant
- Claimed by culture: circumcision, cochlear implants and the ‘intact’ body
- Baseline data from a planned RCT on attitudes to female genital cutting after migration: when are interventions justified?