Female genital mutilation: whose problem, whose solution?: Mutilation or modification?

doi:10.1136/bmj.333.7561.259-b

BMJ 2006;333:259-260 (29 July), doi:10.1136/bmj.333.7561.259-b

Letter

Female genital mutilation: whose problem, whose solution?

Mutilation or modification?

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

EDITOR—Conroy's editorial and the study by Elmusharafet al contribute to a literature that has often tended to belong on polemic and short on data.^{1 2} Conroy's recognition thatour conceptions of what constitutes female genital mutilationneed further thought is long overdue. As I have argued, a coherentresponse requires both that female genital alterations are consideredin terms of their sociocultural significances and that the fullrange of practices from around the globe are examined together.³This entails that responses to and definitions of mutilationrecognise the increasing range of genital plastic surgeriesand the use of body alterations, such as genital piercing. Inaddition, any attempt at reconceptualisation and reclassificationshould examine arguments from those claiming that in some instancesmale circumcision and intersex surgeries constitute genitalmutilation.

Such an endeavour would raise difficult ethical, legal, andmedical issues on, for example, drawing distinctions between. . . [Full text of this article]

Lois S Bibbings, senior lecturer in law

School of Law, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1RJ Lois.S.Bibbings@Bristol.ac.uk

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us Add to Digg

Digg

Technorati What's this?

Relevant Articles

Female genital mutilation: whose problem, whose solution?: Ronán M Conroy
BMJ 2006 333: 106-107. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Reliability of self reported form of female genital mutilation and WHO classification: cross sectional study: Susan Elmusharaf, Nagla Elhadi, and Lars Almroth
BMJ 2006 333: 124. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]