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.
I welcome the guidance from the Royal College of Obstetricians and gynaecologists regarding female genital mutilation. Clarity regarding the legal requirements of notification and management of these patients is crucial. However, it is just as important to realize that despite this practice often being labelled as brutal and inhumane; which indeed it is, this is also a practice that is deeply embedded mainly into African culture with the first known cases of female genital mutilation traced back to ancient Egypt.(1)
Interestingly, the world health organisation defines female genital mutilation as ‘procedures that intentionally alter or cause injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.’ (2) Well is it not ironic that in the 21st century whilst women are being compulsed into this brutal practice, there are other women who are paying thousands for a ‘designer vagina’ or a labioplasty. Is this not by definition a form of female genital mutilation? I assume the reason such women are exempt from this guidance is because they have the free will (and capacity) to do so. In such case, what do we do about the young girls with capacity who plan on genital mutilation…An irrational decision or an arrest warrant?
1. N M Nour. Female Genital Cutting: A Persisting Practice. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Summer; 1(3): 135–139.
Re: Royal college strengthens its guideline on female genital mutilation
I welcome the guidance from the Royal College of Obstetricians and gynaecologists regarding female genital mutilation. Clarity regarding the legal requirements of notification and management of these patients is crucial. However, it is just as important to realize that despite this practice often being labelled as brutal and inhumane; which indeed it is, this is also a practice that is deeply embedded mainly into African culture with the first known cases of female genital mutilation traced back to ancient Egypt.(1)
Interestingly, the world health organisation defines female genital mutilation as ‘procedures that intentionally alter or cause injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.’ (2) Well is it not ironic that in the 21st century whilst women are being compulsed into this brutal practice, there are other women who are paying thousands for a ‘designer vagina’ or a labioplasty. Is this not by definition a form of female genital mutilation? I assume the reason such women are exempt from this guidance is because they have the free will (and capacity) to do so. In such case, what do we do about the young girls with capacity who plan on genital mutilation…An irrational decision or an arrest warrant?
1. N M Nour. Female Genital Cutting: A Persisting Practice. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Summer; 1(3): 135–139.
2. Female Genital Mutilation. Fact Sheet 241. World Health Organization. Available at URL: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/
Competing interests: No competing interests