|
 But campaigners against FGM strongly criticized the proposal, saying
it would undermine global efforts to eradicate the internationally
condemned ritual.
At least 200 million girls and women have been subjected to FGM in
over 30 countries, according to U.N. estimates.
The ancient practice usually involves the partial or total removal
of a girl's external genitalia. In some cases the vaginal opening is
also sewn up.
But some communities practice less invasive rituals such as pricking
or nicking the clitoris.
The U.S. gynecologists, writing in the Journal of Medical Ethics,
argued that permitting more minimal procedures could allow families
to uphold cultural and religious traditions while protecting girls
from more dangerous forms of cutting.
Communities which support FGM often consider it a prerequisite for
marriage. Many also see it as a religious obligation although it is
not mentioned in the Koran or Bible.
But FGM can cause a host of physical and psychological problems.
Gynecologists Kavita Shah Arora and Allan Jacobs said procedures
that slightly changed the look of a girl's genitalia without
damaging them were comparable to male circumcision or cosmetic
procedures in Western countries like labiaplasty.
Laws against mild modifications were "culturally insensitive and
supremacist and discriminatory towards women", they wrote in the
specialist journal, which is published by the British Medical
Journal.
"BEHIND THE TIMES"
FGM is practiced in a swathe of African countries, pockets of Asia
and the Middle East, as well as by diaspora communities living in
the West.
The gynecologists suggested that global attempts to stamp out FGM
with legislation had failed and may by driving the practice
underground.
"We are not arguing that any procedure on the female genitalia is
desirable," they said. "Rather, we only argue that certain
procedures ought to be tolerated by liberal societies."
They said the term "female genital mutilation" should be replaced
with the less emotive "female genital alteration" (FGA) to avoid
"demonizing important cultural practices".
[to top of second column] |
But experts on medical ethics, commenting on the proposal, said
procedures to modify girls' genitals could not be compared to male
circumcision because they are designed to control women and curb
their sexual desire.
They also predicted that legalizing more minimal procedures would
generate a litany of legal, regulatory and medical problems.
Global campaigners against FGM said doctors should challenge harmful
social norms, not condone them.
"Any form of FGM is a violation of a child's rights," said Adwoa
Kwateng-Kluvitse, head of global advocacy at the charity FORWARD
which campaigns against FGM in Africa and Europe.
"Why would you put a little girl through that? There should be no
medicalization of FGM. They (the gynecologists) are completely
behind the times.
"This is very different to male circumcision. With male circumcision
there is no intention to attenuate sexual desire, control sexuality
or enforce chastity."
Rights group Equality Now said the "medicalization" of FGM remained
one of the biggest threats to its elimination.
It said FGM prevalence rates had fallen significantly in many
countries and that properly implemented laws had been very effective
in countries like Kenya.
(Editing by Ros Russell; Please credit the Thomson Reuters
Foundation, the charitable arm of Thomson Reuters, which covers
humanitarian news, women's rights, trafficking, corruption and
climate change. Visit news.trust.org to see more stories.)
[© 2016 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2016 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. |
