Two American gynecologists affirmed that Western States should legally permit immigrants to surgically 'nick' young girl's vaginas as an alternative genital mutilation.
Dr. Kavita Arora of the Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland and Dr. Allan Jacobs of Stony Brook University in New York told that female genital mutilation (FGM) will fight extreme forms of genital cutting rather than outright ban. Such procedure would not only be culturally respectful but also serve to prevent more extensive surgeries.
"While laws enacted in [Western countries] make procedures that alter a female's external genitalia illegal, they may in some instances worsen health outcomes by driving the practice underground by sending female children to Africa or by inviting circumcisers to the West," as stated in by the gynecologist in Journal of Medical Ethics.
By legalizing only the least intrusive FGM procedures, they believe that some young girls might be saved from the most serious procedures that include clitoral removal and vaginal cauterization. Such is the most disruptive interventions would be classed as "Category 5" and is totally outlawed. On the other hand, the so-called "nick" procedures, classed as "Category 1," may become permissible by law.
According to the authors, Category 1 FGM would be no more invasive - in fact, slightly less invasive - than circumcision, which is widespread in the US. The medical benefits of circumcision are tenuous, and the authors consider that the practice, in many cases, is a religious, cultural intervention with parallels to Category 1 FGM.
But campaigners against female genital mutilation (FGM) strongly criticized the proposal, saying it would undermine global efforts to eradicate the internationally condemned ritual. They argued that both practices are carried out without the consent of the minor at the sharp end of the scalpel.
The circumcision argument is rejected by Ruth Macklin of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine. She contended that symbolically, FGM is about subjugation. In its worst form, it seeks to prevent women from having intercourse or, at the very least, prevent them from deriving pleasure from it.
Moreover, Arianne Shahvisi, of the Department of Ethics, Brighton & Sussex Medical School also submitted a commentary regarding a legislative easing around FGM. She also argued that Category 1 FGM would not be adequate to bring about the desired effect.
Shahvisi explained, "In Somalia, FGA ensures religious adherence. In Nigeria, the clitoris is believed to pose a threat in childbirth. Satisfying these reasons often requires complete clitoral excision or infibulation. Since obtaining these changes is the very reason for performing the practice, Dr. Arora and Jacobs' suggested replacement procedure would miss the mark."
As per World Health Organization, "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 body added that 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.
For the majority of people in the West, there is no level of FGM that should be deemed acceptable. However, opening debates on this issue, whether accepted or rejected can still be a useful undertaking. Hiding from, avoiding or ignoring these topics would be the greatest mistake.
