Female genital mutilation: an injury, physical and mental harm

This article gives an overview over the huge topic of 'female genital mutilation' (FGM). FGM means non-therapeutic, partial or complete removal or injury of each of the external female genitals. It concerns about 130 million women around the world. FGM is performed in about 30 countries, most of which are located in Africa. Four types of FGM are distinguished: type I stands for the removal of the clitoral foreskin, type II means the removal of the clitoris with partial or total excision of the labia minora. Type III is the extreme type of FGM. Not only the clitoris but also the labia minora and majora were removed. The orificium vaginae is sewn up, leaving only a small opening for urine or menstruation blood. Other types like pricking, piercing of clitoris or vulva, scraping of the vagina, etc. were defined as type IV of FGM. The mentioned reasons for FGM are: encouragement of the patriarchal family system, method for birth control, guarantee of moral behaviour and faithfulness to the husband, protection of women from suspicions and disgrace, initiation ritual, symbol of feminity and beauty, hygienic, health and economic advantages. Acute physical consequences of FGM include bleeding, wound infections, sepsis, shock, micturition problems and fractures. Chronic physical problems like anemia, infections of the urinary tract, incontinence, infertility, pain, menstruation problems and dyspareunia are frequent. Women also have a higher risk for HIV infections. During pregnancy and delivery, examinations and vaginal application of medicine are more difficult. Women have a higher risk for a prolonged delivery, wound infections, a postpartum blood loss of more than 500 mL, perineal tears, a resuscitation of the infant and an inpatient perinatal death. Mental consequences after FGM include the feelings of incompleteness, fear, inferiority and suppression. Women report chronic irritability and nightmares. They have a higher risk for psychiatric and psychosomatic diseases. FGM carried out by doctors, nurses or midwives is also called medicalisation of FGM and is definitely unacceptable. Regarding human rights, FGM refuses women the right of freedom from bodily harm. Specific laws that ban FGM exist in many countries in Europe, Africa, USA, Canada, New Zealand and Australia.

Quality of care of VLBW neonates: relationship between unit volume and outcome is different between metropolitan and rural regions

BACKGROUND

Recent studies from predominantly rural areas in Germany show that neonatal outcome of very low birth weight (VLBW) neonates is (on average) inferior with lower NICU (neonatal intensive care unit) volume. However, there are no data available which show that study results of one specific region can be transferred to other areas with possibly different medical infrastructure and needs.

AIM

It was investigated whether a systematic difference of treatment quality between smaller (1000-2000 births/year; < or =20 neonatal beds) vs. larger neonatal centres in Berlin (>3000 births/year; >20 neonatal beds) exists. Furthermore, the results are compared to data from a rural region in order to discuss transferability between regions.

METHODS

Retrospectively, completely, and for the first time, the data of all centres which treat VLBW neonates (< or =1500 g birth weight) in the city-state of Berlin, Germany, from the years 2003/2004 were reviewed.

RESULTS

Our study showed no difference in the treatment quality of smaller vs. larger neonatal units in Berlin. This result differs from those of a study in Baden-Württemberg, a predominantly rural state, with different medical infrastructure than Berlin.

CONCLUSION

The present study suggests that regional investigations on the infrastructure vs. treatment outcome are not transferable between areas. Patient volume/unit appears inadequate for predicting the future treatment quality of neonatal departments. Direct quality indicators are stable for the assessed departments and should be preferably used to organize medical infrastructure.

Attitudes of German infertile couples towards multiple births and elective embryo transfer

BACKGROUND

In Germany, embryo screening programmes combined with elective embryo transfer are illegal, but there is controversial debate about their legalization. Studies about the attitudes of infertile couples towards multiples, elective embryo transfer and multifetal reduction may help to illuminate how this law shapes patient choices.

METHODS

A survey of 265 German infertile couples was conducted. Different logistic regression analyses were performed to assess independent factors associated with the parity for multiple births, approval for elective embryo transfer and multifetal reduction.

RESULTS

Despite prior information about the risk of multiple births, 81% of respondents saw no risk in twin pregnancies and a sizable minority saw no risk even in triplet pregnancies. Eighty-nine percent of the respondents rated a twin pregnancy as desirable, whereas 35% rated a triplet birth as desirable. When presented with a choice of having multiple births versus having no biological children, 99% of the respondents endorsed twins, 84% triplets and 58% quadruplets. Seventy-four percent of the respondents approve of legalizing embryo screening programmes to select a good-quality embryo combined with elective embryo transfer. Ninety-two percent of the respondents rejected fetal reduction of twins.

CONCLUSIONS

German infertile couples might conceivably be more willing to accept elective embryo transfer if screening for viable embryos was permitted.