Female circumcision medical reasons-Female genital mutilation - Wikipedia

Many international groups are concerned about FGC, which is practiced extensively in parts of Africa and the Middle East and is linked to infections, infertility, and childbirth complications. Organizations such as the United Nations have campaigned against the practice, calling for its abolition as a matter of global health and human rights. But despite a decades-old movement against it, FGC rates in some countries haven't budged. While younger women are increasingly going uncut in countries such as Nigeria and the Central African Republic, according to a survey by the Population Reference Bureau , in Egypt more than 80 percent of teenagers still undergo the procedure. So what can foreign activists—as well as locals who oppose female genital cutting—do to curb the practice?

The cutting is often done with glass, razor blades, or knives. Marion Sims followed Brown's work Female circumcision medical reasons in slit the neck of a woman's uterus and amputated her clitoris, "for the relief of the nervous or hysterical condition as recommended by Baker Brown". Long-term health problems include: 9 Infections, such as genital abscesses sores filled with pus that must be drained and infectious diseases such as hepatitis B. Because of poor access to information, and because circumcisers downplay the causal connection, women may not associate the health consequences with the procedure. In this last procedure, known as infibulationa small hole is left for the passage of Female circumcision medical reasons and menstrual fluid ; the vagina is opened for intercourse and opened further for childbirth. Wire rope news October In James, Stanlie M. Suffice it to say the claim is not true. Why do they keep doing it?

Hentai rabbit. Popular topics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. This is also called raesons. Violence against women. FGM is a violation of the human rights of girls and women. Gynaecologists in 19th-century Europe and the United States removed the clitoris to treat insanity and masturbation. Stanley; Khan, Shane March Medival communities where infibulation is common, there is a preference for women's genitals to be smooth, dry and without odour, and both women and mesical may find the natural vulva repulsive. People are caught like sheep; one should be allowed to cut her own way of either agreeing to be Female circumcision medical reasons or not without being dictated on one's own body. Dimension to Debate on Genital Mutilation". Lightfoot-Klein, Artistic drawings erotic The warm, moist space under the foreskin is a prime breeding ground for Female circumcision medical reasons, it can harbor sexually transmitted disease organisms, and it produces a cheese-like, foul-smelling substance called smegma.

Back to Health A to Z.

  • Reasons for Circumcision in infant boys could be cultural or religious.
  • All A-Z health topics.
  • Female genital mutilation FGM , also known as female genital cutting and female circumcision , [a] is the ritual cutting or removal of some or all of the external female genitalia.

By Brian D. Earp briandavidearp. The world is watching to see how the case turns out. A lot is at stake here. Healthy tissue is not typically removed by this procedure, which is often done by trained clinicians in the communities where it is common. Long-term adverse health consequences are believed to be rare. Here is why this matters. Initial, albeit conflicting reports suggest that the Dawoodi Bohra engage in this, or a similar , more limited form of female genital cutting — not the more extreme forms that are often highlighted in the Western media.

This fact alone will make things rather complicated for the prosecution. It is, after all, far less invasive than Jewish ritual male circumcision , which is legally allowed on minors in the US, no questions asked. Based on this discrepancy, if attorneys for the Bohra can show a gendered or religious double standard in existing law, the ramifications will be not be small.

The outcome either way will be explosive. I will dig into the male-female comparison —and explore its legal implications —later on. But the law will not actually be my main focus. On both counts, I argue, at least when it comes to childhood genital cutting, apparently biased policies from the WHO are making things a great deal worse. When you reduce your ethical analysis to benefit-risk ratios, you miss important questions of value.

Take the ritual nick, or male circumcision for that matter, and ask yourself what might be morally problematic about these customs, benefits and risks to one side.

A few possibilities come to mind. The genitals are not like other parts of the body. A person can always undergo a genital procedure later on in life, if that is what they want. Similar ambivalence can be found among religiously circumcised men. Both kinds of testimony should be taken seriously.

Instead, they point to vague, impersonal averages or talk in abstract, theoretical terms. Not uncommonly, they claim to be speaking on behalf of their entire religious community, as though it were a monolith at least with respect to attitudes about cutting.

The knife could slip. Nerve damage could occur. Bleeding or infections could ensue. They might even succeed in doing so. What about the legal issues? It is setting itself up for plausible accusations of anti-Muslim bias, as well as sexist double standards as I hinted at before.

The main reason for this is as follows. If convicted, the Muslim minority defendants face 10 years to life in prison for allegedly practicing a form of FGM that is less physically invasive than other forms of medically unnecessary genital cutting that are legally tolerated in Western countries. I have already mentioned male circumcision. To begin with, it—by definition—removes most or all of the foreskin , which is about 50 square centimeters of elastic tissue in the adult organ and the most sensitive part of the penis to light touch.

It creates a ring of scar tissue around the shaft that is often discolored. It makes sexual activities that involve manipulation of the foreskin—see here for a NSFW video —impossible. And it exposes the head of the penis, naturally an internal organ, to rubbing against clothing, which can cause chafing and irritation.

Those are the guaranteed effects. Yet it is perfectly legal in the United States to perform a circumcision on a male child for any reason. This is despite confirmation of more than a dozen cases of herpes transmission, two cases of permanent brain damage, and two infant deaths likely caused by the practice between and Those are just the figures for New York City. But still there are no legal restrictions.

The Bohra defense team will likely flag these inconsistencies. If ritual male circumcision is not only legally permitted but completely unregulated in the US, they will argue, then how can a procedure that carries fewer risks and is less physically damaging be classified as a federal crime?

The prosecution will almost certainly make two moves in response. But things are not so simple. It is true that female circumcision is not mentioned in the Koran; but neither is male circumcision. How could that be so?

One such source is the Hadith—the sayings of the Prophet Mohammed—which is the other major basis for Islamic law apart from the Koran. There is no ultimate authority in Islam to settle such disputes, however, so debate continues to this day. Dawoodi Bohra clerics view the practice as religious. This leads to an uncomfortable thought. Neither of those propositions follow.

Finally, we attribute evil motives to the parents who circumcise their daughters, when the same parents almost invariably also circumcise their sons, sometimes more invasively, and often for identical reasons. Suffice it to say the claim is not true. So who are we kidding?

Even many Jews who circumcise are committed atheists and for all I know, so are many Muslims. Most of the decent-quality data showing health benefits for male circumcision primarily, a modest reduction in the absolute risk of some sexually transmitted infections come from surgeries performed on adults in Africa, not babies in the United States or Europe. The findings cannot be simply copy-pasted from one context and age range to another. But even if you could just copy and paste, you would still have to factor in the risks and harms of circumcision, which are not trivial.

In fact, most national medical associations to have issued formal policies on the question have found that the benefits of childhood male circumcision are not sufficient to outweigh the disadvantages of the surgery in developed countries. This suggests either that the scales are closely balanced, as the Canadian Pediatric Society claims , or actually tipped in the direction of net harm, as the Royal Dutch Medical Association has concluded.

Just think. Alarmingly, one place we might start operating is the pediatric vulva. In countries where female circumcision is relatively common, this is exactly what is claimed for the procedure. Moreover, at least two studies by Western scientists have shown a negative correlation between female circumcision and HIV.

None of these findings is conclusive. But let us just imagine that some of the above-cited health benefits are eventually confirmed. Would anti-FGM campaigners suddenly be prepared to say that female genital cutting was ethically acceptable? I would be surprised if that turned out to be the case. Second, they would point to non-surgical means of preventing or treating infections, and suggest that these should be favored over more invasive methods.

And third, they would bring up the language of rights: a girl has a right to grow up with her genitals intact, they would say, and decide for herself at an age of understanding whether she would like to have parts of them cut into or cut off. The same arguments apply to male circumcision. In neither case, however, is the research open-ended: in relation to women the search is for damage, in relation to men it is for benefit; and since the initial assumptions influence the outcomes, these results are duly found.

Specifically, it could open the door for supporters of female genital cutting to mount a defense of the procedure modeled on the male parallel.

To put it simply, if the sheer existence of health benefits is so compelling to organizations like WHO, these supporters might think, then all we have to do is generate the right kind of evidence, and we can fend off critics of our cherished custom.

There are already signs of this happening. And what about the Dawoodi Bohra? The history of male circumcision shows how this could happen. Alongside female genital cutting, male genital cutting originated in African prehistory as a ritual practice, and was later adopted by various Semitic tribes.

For most of its existence, the only claimed advantages of the procedure were social or metaphysical in nature—identifying the boy as a member of a particular group, for example, or sealing a divine covenant, as in Judaism. In the physical realm, by contrast, circumcision was largely believed to have negative effects, including on sexual feeling and satisfaction.

In the United States, for example, circumcision was adopted in part as an anti-masturbation tactic in the late s masturbation, at the time, was thought to cause not only moral but medical ills; see here for a video introduction.

A large proportion of the current medical literature purporting to show health benefits for male circumcision has been generated by doctors who were themselves circumcised at birth—often for religious reasons—and who have cultural, financial, or other interests in seeing the practice preserved.

Science and medicine are not immune from such agendas or biases. Their conclusion was puzzling, since they did not have a method for assigning weights to individual benefits or risks, much less an accepted mechanism by which the two could be compared.

They were also missing the denominator to their equation. In an unprecedented move, the AAP was rebuked by senior physicians, ethicists, and representatives from national medical societies based in the UK, Canada, and mainland Europe, who argued that the findings were likely culturally biased. It came down to a subjective judgment. Reflecting on the debacle in a recent editorial, Task Force member Andrew Freedman tried to explain how he and his colleagues had reached a different conclusion to that of their peers in other countries despite looking at the same medical evidence.

In doing so, he made a revealing comment:. Most circumcisions are done due to religious and cultural tradition. In the West, although parents may use the conflicting medical literature to buttress their own beliefs and desires, for the most part parents choose what they want for a wide variety of nonmedical reasons.

There can be no doubt that religion, culture, aesthetic preference, familial identity, and personal experience all factor into their decision. The women in societies that practice what they call female circumcision are just as devoted to their cultural traditions as are the men who practice genital cutting of boys. Regardless of health consequences, they see nontherapeutic genital cutting of female minors as contrary to their best interests, propped up by questionable social norms that should themselves be challenged and changed.

I would go one step further. All children—female, male, and intersex—have a compelling interest in intact genitalia. As I have explained elsewhere , legal prohibition can be a clumsy way of bringing about social change, often causing more harm than good.

Cohen, Shaye J. Girls and women in the United States who have already been cut need access to clinically and culturally appropriate care from trained health care providers. Social Women's history Feminist history Timeline of women's rights other than voting. In other projects Wikimedia Commons Wikibooks Wikiquote. Both men were acquitted in

Female circumcision medical reasons. Procedures

Many of the serious complications documented in the literature were easily preventable. Babies seem to get just as upset from lesser procedures like having blood drawn, and sometimes an irritable baby goes into a hissy fit just from being dressed or from being hungry.

They cry uncontrollably for even trivial reasons, but they get over it promptly. Some of the arguments for circumcision are unavoidably intertwined with a separate issue: hygiene. The warm, moist space under the foreskin is a prime breeding ground for bacteria, it can harbor sexually transmitted disease organisms, and it produces a cheese-like, foul-smelling substance called smegma. It is plausible that this could contribute to infections in the man and his partner, and even to cancer. Circumcision undoubtedly facilitates hygiene, but is that a reason to operate?

The current consensus of most experts is that circumcision should not be recommended as a prevention strategy for penile cancer. What all this really boils down to is that there are no compelling scientific arguments for or against neonatal circumcision.

There are small risks and there are small benefits. The decision is not a medical one. Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. Aside from religious reasons, the main reason parents give for circumcision seems to be simply to make junior match Dad.

I used to live in Spain, where you could tell girl babies from boy babies just by looking at their ears: all the baby girls had their ears pierced in the delivery room. It was nowhere near as controversial as circumcision. I wonder why. Harriet Hall, MD also known as The SkepDoc, is a retired family physician who writes about pseudoscience and questionable medical practices.

During a long career as an Air Force physician, she held various positions from flight surgeon to DBMS Director of Base Medical Services and did everything from delivering babies to taking the controls of a B She retired with the rank of Colonel. In she published her memoirs, Women Aren't Supposed to Fly.

Medical Ethics Surgical Procedures. Circumcision: What Does Science Say? Harriet Hall on November 4, Posted in: Medical Ethics , Surgical Procedures Tagged in: AIDS , anesthesia , cancer of the penis , circumcision , foreskin , HIV , hygiene , paraphimosis , pediatrics , penile cancer , phimosis , urinary tract infections , urology. All Posts Website. Show comments Hide comments. The practice also violates a person's rights to health, security and physical integrity, the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the right to life when the procedure results in death.

Deinfibulation refers to the practice of cutting open the sealed vaginal opening in a woman who has been infibulated, which is often necessary for improving health and well-being as well as to allow intercourse or to facilitate childbirth.

FGM has no health benefits, and it harms girls and women in many ways. It involves removing and damaging healthy and normal female genital tissue, and interferes with the natural functions of girls' and women's bodies.

Generally speaking, risks increase with increasing severity of the procedure. Procedures are mostly carried out on young girls sometime between infancy and adolescence, and occasionally on adult women. More than 3 million girls are estimated to be at risk for FGM annually. More than million girls and women alive today have been cut in 30 countries in Africa, the Middle East and Asia where FGM is concentrated 1.

The practice is most common in the western, eastern, and north-eastern regions of Africa, in some countries the Middle East and Asia, as well as among migrants from these areas. FGM is therefore a global concern. The reasons why female genital mutilations are performed vary from one region to another as well as over time, and include a mix of sociocultural factors within families and communities.

The most commonly cited reasons are:. Since , great efforts have been made to counteract FGM, through research, work within communities, and changes in public policy. Progress at international, national and sub-national levels includes:. Research shows that, if practicing communities themselves decide to abandon FGM, the practice can be eliminated very rapidly. This statement provided evidence collected over the previous decade about the practice of FGM.

In , WHO published a "Global strategy to stop health care providers from performing female genital mutilation" in collaboration with other key UN agencies and international organizations. In December , the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on the elimination of female genital mutilation.

Female genital mutilation

The practice is mostly carried out by traditional circumcisers, who often play other central roles in communities, such as attending childbirths.

In many settings, health care providers perform FGM due to the erroneous belief that the procedure is safer when medicalized 1. WHO strongly urges health professionals not to perform such procedures. FGM is recognized internationally as a violation of the human rights of girls and women. It reflects deep-rooted inequality between the sexes, and constitutes an extreme form of discrimination against women.

It is nearly always carried out on minors and is a violation of the rights of children. The practice also violates a person's rights to health, security and physical integrity, the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the right to life when the procedure results in death.

Deinfibulation refers to the practice of cutting open the sealed vaginal opening in a woman who has been infibulated, which is often necessary for improving health and well-being as well as to allow intercourse or to facilitate childbirth.

FGM has no health benefits, and it harms girls and women in many ways. It involves removing and damaging healthy and normal female genital tissue, and interferes with the natural functions of girls' and women's bodies. Generally speaking, risks increase with increasing severity of the procedure. Procedures are mostly carried out on young girls sometime between infancy and adolescence, and occasionally on adult women. More than 3 million girls are estimated to be at risk for FGM annually.

More than million girls and women alive today have been cut in 30 countries in Africa, the Middle East and Asia where FGM is concentrated 1. The practice is most common in the western, eastern, and north-eastern regions of Africa, in some countries the Middle East and Asia, as well as among migrants from these areas.

FGM is therefore a global concern. The reasons why female genital mutilations are performed vary from one region to another as well as over time, and include a mix of sociocultural factors within families and communities. The most commonly cited reasons are:. Since , great efforts have been made to counteract FGM, through research, work within communities, and changes in public policy. Progress at international, national and sub-national levels includes:.

Research shows that, if practicing communities themselves decide to abandon FGM, the practice can be eliminated very rapidly. This statement provided evidence collected over the previous decade about the practice of FGM.

In , WHO published a "Global strategy to stop health care providers from performing female genital mutilation" in collaboration with other key UN agencies and international organizations. In December , the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on the elimination of female genital mutilation. Building on a previous report from , in UNICEF launched an updated report documenting the prevalence of FGM in 30 countries, as well as beliefs, attitudes, trends, and programmatic and policy responses to the practice globally.

The guidelines were developed based on a systematic review of the best available evidence on health interventions for women living with FGM. To ensure the effective implementation of the guidelines, WHO is developing tools for front-line health-care workers to improve knowledge, attitudes, and skills of health care providers in preventing and managing the complications of FGM. Infographics Infographics on female genital mutilation. Female genital mutilation 31 January Key facts Female genital mutilation FGM includes procedures that intentionally alter or cause injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.

The procedure has no health benefits for girls and women. Procedures can cause severe bleeding and problems urinating, and later cysts, infections, as well as complications in childbirth and increased risk of newborn deaths. FGM is mostly carried out on young girls between infancy and age FGM is a violation of the human rights of girls and women.

Female genital mutilation FGM comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.

Related Female genital mutilation and other harmful practices Health risks of female genital mutilation FGM Global strategy to stop health-care providers from performing female genital mutilation Eliminating female genital mutilation. Working towards zero tolerance for female genital mutilation in Sudan 6 February