Drs. Propose Female Genital Alteration as FGM ‘Compromise’
By Meira Svirsky
The Clarion Project
February 24, 2016
‘I am beyond horrified by [these] so called “ethicists” …There is NO compromise against the immorality and barbarism of FGM.’ — Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser.
Writing in the British Journal of Medial Ethics, two U.S.-based doctors have proposed that as a “compromise solution,” it would be better to adopt a “more nuanced position” on Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) — one “that acknowledges a wide spectrum of procedures that alter female genitalia.”
The doctors think that the worldwide drive in recent years to completely eradicate the brutal practice, without allowing “minor” modifications is “culturally insensitive and supremacist and discriminatory towards women.”
They argue that criminalizing FGM in Western countries has pushed the practice underground in the U.K. and the U.S. and given rise to “vacation cutting,” a phenomena where girls are taken to their native countries during summer vacations for the harmful and traumatic procedure.
Doctors Kavita Shah Arora, director of quality, obstetrics and gynecology at the MetroHealth Medical Center in Cleveland and Dr. Allan Jacobs, professor of reproductive medicine at Stony Brook University, believe that minor alterations of the female genitalia do not “reach the threshold of a human rights violation” and should not be considered child abuse.
Although the doctors say that a “wide spectrum” of procedures that alter the female genitalia would be acceptable, they fail to delineate exactly what these alterations would entail, save for two specifically mentioned: a small cut to the external genitalia or the removal of the hood that covers the clitoris.
The faultiness of their arguments is many-fold. But first, let us own up to the facts.
FGM is a brutal, barbarian practice in which involves partial or complete removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.
[Continue reading on The Clarion Project …]