Female genital mutilation: why are we so radical?

Abstract

The medicalisation of female genital mutilation should not be officially incorporated into any organisation's policy, but provision of medical supplies for surgical procedures may save lives and suffering. Nathan Ford (Oct 6, p 1179)1Ford N Tackling female genital cutting in Somalia.Lancet. 2001; 358: 1179Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (8) Google Scholar reports on female genital mutilation in Somalia. The practice of female genital mutilation in Somalia and in northeastern Kenya within Somali populations is common. I think that the approach taken by Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) in joining forces with women's groups and in training traditional birth attendants and midwives is to be applauded.In 1994, I was in that region working with women's groups and involved in the training of traditional birth attendants. I was surprised on how easily attendants shared their methods of genital mutilation. They agreed to cut less and that the practice was harmful. Yet, they prepared for the event with extreme joy and pride, leaving aside our women doctors to women-doctors' talk.In 1999, a newspaper reported that MSF workers had provided medical equipment to do female genital mutilation.2Veash N Genital mutilation: aid group caught in controversy.www.unfoundation.org/unwire/archives/UNWIRE990824.asp#7Google Scholar The organisation stated that this was the decision of individuals and that it did not reflect its policy. I think such individual decision is a wise intermediate position towards the eradication of female genital mutilation.Increased knowledge of traditional birth attendants on the hazards of female genital mutilation does not mean that the practice will be reduced. Ford and colleagues declare that medicalisation does not prevent the complications of female genital mutilation and that the practice remains a human rights violation. I agree. Yet, medicalisation is a harm-reduction strategy. Provision of anaesthesia reduces the pain during the procedure, and I think international health workers should not turn a blind eye to the pain inflicted while awaiting other effective strategies.A friendly approach will help to control female genital mutilation more quickly than a censured one. International health workers should decide, individually, at field level, and, dependent on their ability to handle their involvement with the community, whether they want to diminish the suffering of girls when going through this time-honoured atrocity. In the meantime, we should continue our efforts to eradicate this practice. The medicalisation of female genital mutilation should not be officially incorporated into any organisation's policy, but provision of medical supplies for surgical procedures may save lives and suffering. Nathan Ford (Oct 6, p 1179)1Ford N Tackling female genital cutting in Somalia.Lancet. 2001; 358: 1179Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (8) Google Scholar reports on female genital mutilation in Somalia. The practice of female genital mutilation in Somalia and in northeastern Kenya within Somali populations is common. I think that the approach taken by Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) in joining forces with women's groups and in training traditional birth attendants and midwives is to be applauded. In 1994, I was in that region working with women's groups and involved in the training of traditional birth attendants. I was surprised on how easily attendants shared their methods of genital mutilation. They agreed to cut less and that the practice was harmful. Yet, they prepared for the event with extreme joy and pride, leaving aside our women doctors to women-doctors' talk. In 1999, a newspaper reported that MSF workers had provided medical equipment to do female genital mutilation.2Veash N Genital mutilation: aid group caught in controversy.www.unfoundation.org/unwire/archives/UNWIRE990824.asp#7Google Scholar The organisation stated that this was the decision of individuals and that it did not reflect its policy. I think such individual decision is a wise intermediate position towards the eradication of female genital mutilation. Increased knowledge of traditional birth attendants on the hazards of female genital mutilation does not mean that the practice will be reduced. Ford and colleagues declare that medicalisation does not prevent the complications of female genital mutilation and that the practice remains a human rights violation. I agree. Yet, medicalisation is a harm-reduction strategy. Provision of anaesthesia reduces the pain during the procedure, and I think international health workers should not turn a blind eye to the pain inflicted while awaiting other effective strategies. A friendly approach will help to control female genital mutilation more quickly than a censured one. International health workers should decide, individually, at field level, and, dependent on their ability to handle their involvement with the community, whether they want to diminish the suffering of girls when going through this time-honoured atrocity. In the meantime, we should continue our efforts to eradicate this practice.