Medicalization of female genital mutilation. Harm reduction or unethical?

摘要

Female genital mutilation (FGM) is estimated to have affected over 100 million girls and women worldwide. Despite no health benefits, around 18% of procedures are carried out by healthcare workers. The central argument for medicalization is the concept of harm reduction. This means mitigating acute complications, by using aseptic techniques and anaesthetic, whilst also promoting symbolic procedures over more radical forms of FGM. Other arguments include critical analysis of the long term health consequences of FGM, hypocrisy in the medical establishment and potential social benefits. Groups against medicalized FGM point to long lasting health and psychosexual consequences. They also argue that it would not be compatible with medical ethics as well as several human rights agreements. Moreover, rather than helping end the practice, they argue that medicalizing FGM will only entrench the practice and cause more harm to women. This article explores arguments for and against medicalized forms of FGM.