Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2006;333:259-260 (29 July), doi:10.1136/bmj.333.7561.259-b
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
EDITORConroy's editorial and the study by Elmusharaf et al contribute to a literature that has often tended to be long on polemic and short on data.1 2 Conroy's recognition that our conceptions of what constitutes female genital mutilation need further thought is long overdue. As I have argued, a coherent response requires both that female genital alterations are considered in terms of their sociocultural significances and that the full range of practices from around the globe are examined together.3 This entails that responses to and definitions of mutilation recognise the increasing range of genital plastic surgeries and the use of body alterations, such as genital piercing. In addition, any attempt at reconceptualisation and reclassification should examine arguments from those claiming that in some instances male circumcision and intersex surgeries constitute genital mutilation.
Such an endeavour would raise difficult ethical, legal, and medical issues on, for example, drawing distinctions between
Lois S Bibbings, senior lecturer in law
School of Law, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1RJ Lois.S.Bibbings@Bristol.ac.uk
What can you learn from this BMJ paper? Read Leanne Tite's Paper+