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 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 . . . [Full text of this article]

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

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Related 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]