Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
It is right that there is a clear distinction between giving medical care to someone previously subject to FGM, such as stitches after childbirth to control bleeding, and committing an offence.
The law is clear that no offence of FGM is committed by an approved person who performs a surgical operation which is necessary for the patient’s physical or mental health, or for the purposes connected with the labour or birth. This was, of course, considered in this case.
The full facts of this case are yet to be heard in court and commentary which misunderstands the facts is unhelpful in this very important area of the law. It is also extremely important that nothing prejudices the upcoming trial.
Re: First UK prosecution for female genital mutilation raises concerns among doctors
Dear Sir,
It is right that there is a clear distinction between giving medical care to someone previously subject to FGM, such as stitches after childbirth to control bleeding, and committing an offence.
The law is clear that no offence of FGM is committed by an approved person who performs a surgical operation which is necessary for the patient’s physical or mental health, or for the purposes connected with the labour or birth. This was, of course, considered in this case.
The full facts of this case are yet to be heard in court and commentary which misunderstands the facts is unhelpful in this very important area of the law. It is also extremely important that nothing prejudices the upcoming trial.
Competing interests: No competing interests