Genital Modifications in Prepubescent Minors: When May Clinicians Ethically Proceed?

When is it ethically permissible for clinicians to surgically intervene into the genitals of a legal minor? We distinguish between voluntary and nonvoluntary procedures and focus on nonvoluntary procedures, specifically in prepubescent minors ("children"). We do not address procedures in adolescence or adulthood. With respect to children categorized as female at birth who have no apparent differences of sex development (i.e., non-intersex or "endosex" females) there is a near-universal ethical consensus in the Global North. This consensus holds that clinicians may not perform any nonvoluntary genital cutting or surgery, from "cosmetic" labiaplasty to medicalized ritual "pricking" of the vulva, insofar as the procedure is not strictly necessary to protect the child's physical health. All other motivations, including possible psychosocial, cultural, subjective-aesthetic, or prophylactic benefits as judged by doctors or parents, are seen as categorically inappropriate grounds for a clinician to proceed with a nonvoluntary genital procedure in this population. We argue that the main ethical reasons capable of supporting this consensus turn not on empirically contestable benefit-risk calculations, but on a fundamental concern to respect the child's privacy, bodily integrity, developing sexual boundaries, and (future) genital autonomy. We show that these ethical reasons are sound. However, as we argue, they do not only apply to endosex female children, but rather to all children regardless of sex characteristics, including those with intersex traits and endosex males. We conclude, therefore, that as a matter of justice, inclusivity, and gender equality in medical-ethical policy (we do not take a position as to criminal law), clinicians should not be permitted to perform any nonvoluntary genital cutting or surgery in prepubescent minors, irrespective of the latter's sex traits or gender assignment, unless urgently necessary to protect their physical health. By contrast, we suggest that voluntary surgeries in older individuals might, under certain conditions, permissibly be performed for a wider range of reasons, including reasons of self-identity or psychosocial well-being, in keeping with the circumstances, values, and explicit needs and preferences of the persons so concerned. Note: Because our position is tied to clinicians' widely accepted role-specific duties as medical practitioners within regulated healthcare systems, we do not consider genital procedures performed outside of a healthcare context (e.g., for religious reasons) or by persons other than licensed healthcare providers working in their professional capacity.

How Canadian Law Shapes the Health Care Experiences of Women with Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting/Circumcision and Their Providers: A Disjuncture Between Expectation and Actuality

This study explored how the reproductive health care experiences of women with female genital mutilation/cutting/circumcision (FGC) were shaped. We used Institutional Ethnography, a sociological approach which allows for the study of social relations and the coordination of health care. From qualitatively interviewing eight women with FGC, we learned that they felt excluded within the Canadian health care system because they were unable to access reconstructive surgery, which was not covered by Ontario's universal health coverage (Ontario Health Insurance Plan). We then talked with seven obstetricians/gynecologists (OB/GYNs) and learned that while it was legal to perform certain genital (e.g., female genital cosmetic surgery) and reproductive (e.g., elective caesarean section) surgeries commonly requested by Western-born women, it was not legal for them to perform other genital surgeries often requested by immigrant populations (e.g., reinfibulation), nor were these covered by OHIP (e.g., clitoral reconstructive surgery). From participants' comparison of clitoral reconstructive surgery and reinfibulation to female genital cosmetic and gender confirming surgeries, it became clear that the law and policies within the health care system favored surgeries elected by Western adults over those wished for by women with FGC. We found that the law had an impact on the choices that OB/GYNs and the women they treated could make, shaping their respective experiences. This created ethical dilemmas for OB/GYNs and a sense of exclusion from the health care system for women with FGC.

Genital Cutting as Gender Oppression: Time to Revisit the WHO Paradigm

The World Health Organization (WHO) condemns all medically unnecessary female genital cutting (FGC) that is primarily associated with people of color and the Global South, claiming that such FGC violates the human right to bodily integrity regardless of harm-level, degree of medicalization, or consent. However, the WHO does not condemn medically unnecessary FGC that is primarily associated with Western culture, such as elective labiaplasty or genital piercing, even when performed by non-medical practitioners (e.g., body artists) or on adolescent girls. Nor does it campaign against any form of medically unnecessary intersex genital cutting (IGC) or male genital cutting (MGC), including forms that are non-consensual or comparably harmful to some types of FGC. These and other apparent inconsistencies risk undermining the perceived authority of the WHO to pronounce on human rights. This paper considers whether the WHO could justify its selective condemnation of non-Western-associated FGC by appealing to the distinctive role of such practices in upholding patriarchal gender systems and furthering sex-based discrimination against women and girls. The paper argues that such a justification would not succeed. To the contrary, dismantling patriarchal power structures and reducing sex-based discrimination in FGC-practicing societies requires principled opposition to medically unnecessary, non-consensual genital cutting of all vulnerable persons, including insufficiently autonomous children, irrespective of their sex traits or socially assigned gender. This conclusion is based, in part, on an assessment of the overlapping and often mutually reinforcing roles of different types of child genital cutting—FGC, MGC, and IGC—in reproducing oppressive gender systems. These systems, in turn, tend to subordinate women and girls as well as non-dominant males and sexual and gender minorities. The selective efforts of the WHO to eliminate only non-Western-associated FGC exposes the organization to credible accusations of racism and cultural imperialism and paradoxically undermines its own stated goals: namely, securing the long-term interests and equal rights of women and girls in FGC-practicing societies.

Exploring opposition to ritual female genital cutting since the first U.S. federal prosecution: the 2017 detroit case

In the U.S., the 1996 federal law banning medically unnecessary female genital cutting (FGC) of minors was rendered unconstitutional in 2018 in the Nagarwala case. This paper highlights legal developments at the federal and state levels in the U.S. since this trial. It looks at anti-FGC frameworks in other Western countries such as Australia, the UK, France, and Switzerland for comparison. The Australia High Court ruled in favor of a broader interpretation of the words "mutilate" (as in "female genital mutilation" or FGM) and "clitoris" in 2019. In the UK in 2019, a mother of a three-year-old became the first person convicted of "FGM.". In the U.S., 2020 federal legislation strengthened opposition to FGC of minors. Twenty-one U.S. states have developed legislation since 2017 that was enacted to oppose such FGC. The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution affords equal protection under the law without regard to sex or gender, prompting increased inclusion of neonatal male circumcision and normalizing surgery for children with intersex traits in the FGC legislation debate. More widely, the principle of equal application of the law raises questions about the legality of adult female genital cosmetic surgery where adult "FGM" is banned. Tensions between state law and religious law introduce complexities to allowing religious and cultural communities to practice their preferred way of life when this conflicts with human and civil rights afforded to individuals within secular liberal democracies. For consistency, the anti-FGC framework in the U.S. may need to shift towards calls to protect all children, regardless of sex characteristics (i.e., including male and intersex children) from medically unnecessary, non-consensual genital cutting.

The Perception of African Immigrant Women Living in Spain Regarding the Persistence of FGM

Approximately 200 million women and girls have undergone female genital mutilation (FGM) worldwide. Migration has spread the practice of FGM around the world, thus making it a global public health issue. The objective of this descriptive qualitative study was to explore the perceptions of Sub-Saharan immigrant women in Spain in relation to the causes of the persistence of FGM. In-depth interviews were carried out with 13 female FGM survivors of African origin, followed by inductive data analysis using ATLAS.ti software. Two main themes emerged from the analysis: (1) A family ritual symbolic of purification and (2) a system of false beliefs and deception in favour of FGM. The FGM survivors living in Europe are aware that FGM is a practice that violates human rights yet persists due to a system of false beliefs rooted in family traditions and deception that hides the reality of FGM from young girls or forces them to undergo the practice. The ritualistic nature of FGM and the threat of social exclusion faced by women who have not had it performed on them contributes to its persistence nowadays.

Male or female genital cutting: why 'health benefits' are morally irrelevant

The WHO, American Academy of Pediatrics and other Western medical bodies currently maintain that all medically unnecessary female genital cutting of minors is categorically a human rights violation, while either tolerating or actively endorsing medically unnecessary male genital cutting of minors, especially in the form of penile circumcision. Given that some forms of female genital cutting, such as ritual pricking or nicking of the clitoral hood, are less severe than penile circumcision, yet are often performed within the same families for similar (eg, religious) reasons, it may seem that there is an unjust double standard. Against this view, it is sometimes claimed that while female genital cutting has 'no health benefits', male genital cutting has at least some. Is that really the case? And if it is the case, can it justify the disparate treatment of children with different sex characteristics when it comes to protecting their genital integrity? I argue that, even if one accepts the health claims that are sometimes raised in this context, they cannot justify such disparate treatment. Rather, children of all sexes and genders have an equal right to (future) bodily autonomy. This includes the right to decide whether their own 'private' anatomy should be exposed to surgical risk, much less permanently altered, for reasons they themselves endorse when they are sufficiently mature.

Rethinking the Anti-FGM Zero-Tolerance Policy: from Intellectual Concerns to Empirical Challenges

Purpose of Review

Based on the discussions of a symposium co-organized by the Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB) and the University of Lausanne (UNIL) in Brussels in 2019, this paper critically reflects upon the zero-tolerance strategy on “Female Genital Mutilation” (FGM) and its socio-political, legal and moral repercussions. We ask whether the strategy is effective given the empirical challenges highlighted during the symposium, and also whether it is credible.

Recent Findings

The anti-FGM zero-tolerance policy, first launched in 2003, aims to eliminate all types of “female genital mutilation” worldwide. The FGM definition of the World Health Organization condemns all forms of genital cutting (FGC) on the basis that they are harmful and degrading to women and infringe upon their rights to physical integrity. Yet, the zero-tolerance policy only applies to traditional and customary forms of genital cutting and not to cosmetic alterations of the female genitalia. Recent publications have shown that various popular forms of cosmetic genital surgery remove the same tissue as some forms of “FGM”. In response to the zero-tolerance policy, national laws banning traditional forms of FGC are enforced and increasingly scrutinize the performance of FGC as well as non-invasive rituals that are culturally meaningful to migrants. At the same time, cosmetic procedures such as labiaplasty have become more popular than ever before and are increasingly performed on adolescents.

Summary

This review shows that the socio-legal and ethical inconsistencies between “FGM” and cosmetic genital modification pose concrete dilemmas for professionals in the field that need to be addressed and researched.

Current critiques of the WHO policy on female genital mutilation

In recent years, the dominant Western discourse on "female genital mutilation" (FGM) has increasingly been challenged by scholars. Numerous researchers contest both the terminology used and the empirical claims made in what has come to be called "the standard tale" of FGM (also termed "female genital cutting" [FGC]). The World Health Organization (WHO), a major player in setting the global agenda on this issue, maintains that all medically unnecessary cutting of the external female genitalia, no matter how slight, should be banned as torture and a violation of the human right to bodily integrity. However, the WHO targets only non-Western forms of female-only genital cutting, raising concerns about gender bias and cultural imperialism. Here, we summarize ongoing critiques of the WHO's terminology, ethicolegal assumptions, and empirical claims, including the claim that non-Western FGC as such constitutes an extreme form of discrimination against women. To this end, we highlight recent comparative studies of medically unnecessary genital cutting of all types, including those affecting adult women and teenagers in Western societies, individuals with differences of sex development (DSD), transgender persons, and males. In so doing, we attempt to clarify the grounds for a growing critical consensus that current anti-FGM laws and policies may be ethically incoherent, empirically unsupportable, and legally unsustainable.

"When my mother called me to say that the time of cutting had arrived, I just escaped to Belgium with my daughter": identifying turning points in the change of attitudes towards the practice of female genital mutilation among migrant women in Belgium

BACKGROUND

Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is a public health concern with negative consequences on women's health. It is a harmful practice which is recognized in international discourses on public health as a form of gender-based violence. Women are not only victims of this, but also perpetrators. The practice of FGM remains a social norm which is difficult to change because it is deeply rooted in tradition and is embedded in the patriarchal system. However, some women have managed to change their attitudes towards it and have spoken out against it. This study identifies and describes turning points that have been defined as significant and critical events in the lives of the women, and that have engendered changes in their attitudes towards the practice of FGM.

METHODS

We have conducted an inductive qualitative study based on the life story approach, where we interviewed 15 women who have undergone FGM. During the interviews, we discussed and identified the turning points that gave the research participants the courage to change their position regarding FGM. The analysis drew on lifeline constructions and thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Six common turning points relating to a change in attitude towards FGM were identified: turning points related to (i) encounters with health professionals, (ii) education, (iii) social interactions with other cultures and their own culture, (iv) experiences of motherhood, (v) repeated pain during sexual or reproductive activity, and (vi) witnessing the effects of some harmful consequences of FGM on loved ones.

CONCLUSIONS

The turning points identified challenged the understanding of what it means to be a 'member' of the community in a patriarchal system; a 'normal woman' according to the community; and what it means to be a 'good mother'. Moreover, the turning points manifested in conjunction with issues centered on emotional responses and coming to terms with conflicts of loyalty, which we see as possible triggers behind the shift experienced by the women in our sample.

A Profile of Gender-Based Violence Research in Europe: Findings From a Focused Mapping Review and Synthesis

This article reports the findings from a new form of review: a focused mapping review and synthesis. The aim was to create a contemporary, snapshot profile of the nature and scope of gender-based violence (GBV) studies conducted in Europe. GBV is one of the most prevalent human rights violations in the world affecting mainly women and girls. The policy context of GBV in Europe has gathered momentum in recent years, but we do not have a clear picture of how this relates to research activity. Thirteen journals were purposively selected on their likelihood to publish GBV research. All articles published in these journals during 2015 and meeting our inclusion criteria were retrieved. Data were extracted according to (1) types of methodologies used, (2) geographical location of research, and (3) patterns of research activity/interest. Thirty-two articles met the inclusion criteria. Many titles and abstracts were not explicit about the gendered nature of the research which made retrieval and analysis difficult. A range of methodologies were reported, with single-country research conducted more than international collaborations. Intimate partner violence and sexual abuse attracted most research interest. No studies explored female genital mutilation/cutting and only one investigated early and forced marriage. The findings have implications regarding GBV research in Europe, and we explore them in relation to relevant European policy. Researchers can help raise the profile of the gendered nature of most violence-related research by being explicit about this in their publications. Increasing opportunities for cross-national research will help address the global nature of GBV. Tackling GBV requires synergy of empirical evidence and policy to drive the agenda.

Addressing female genital mutilation in Europe: a scoping review of approaches to participation, prevention, protection, and provision of services

BACKGROUND

Public and policy attention to female genital mutilation (FGM) in diaspora communities has increased in Europe, but research remains limited and misinformation abounds. As a first step to addressing these issues, this study explored FGM prevention and response interventions in Europe, using a scoping literature review and key informant interviews.

METHODS

A scoping study design was selected, using Arksey and O'Malley's six-stage scoping framework to review identified sources. Key informant interviews were used to inform and add depth to literature findings. Findings were summarised thematically, guided by the Scottish Government's '4Ps' framework for tackling violence against women (i.e. participation, prevention, protection, providing services).

RESULTS

Seventy literature sources, of 1095 screened, plus 16 individual and 3 group interview sources were included. Several countries have developed promising interventions supporting FGM resistance and recovery. However, gaps remain including community participation, professional knowledge and linkages, and evaluation of approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review is an initial attempt to describe available primary evidence on European initiatives responding to FGM. Further research is required to determine whether interventions are effective, while policy and practice development must be shaped and driven by the experiences, needs, and views of affected communities.

Why UK doctors should be troubled by female genital mutilation legislation

A UK doctor was recently acquitted of charges of reinstating a variety of female genital mutilation after delivering a child. In this paper, I contend that this incident reflects a broader confusion concerning the ethico-legal status of non-therapeutic genital surgeries for children and adults, which are not derivable from tenets of medical ethics, but rather violate them. I argue that medical professionals have an obligation to announce and address this confusion in order to motivate legislative reform, since the inconsistency of the current law entrenches the underlying sexism and ethnocentrism upon which its sense depends. Without convincing arguments for (a) condoning male circumcision and female cosmetic genital surgery and for (b) treating adult women of colour as lacking the capacity to consent, the current legislation stands in need of urgent revision.

In defence of genital autonomy for children

Arora and Jacobs (2016) assume that liberal societies should tolerate non-therapeutic infant male circumcision, and argue that it follows from this that they should similarly tolerate-or even encourage-what the authors regard as 'de minimis' forms of female genital mutilation (as defined by the World Health Organization). In this commentary, I argue that many serious problems would be likely to follow from a policy of increased tolerance for female genital mutilation, and that it may therefore be time to consider a less tolerant attitude toward non-therapeutic infant male circumcision. Ultimately, I suggest that children of whatever sex or gender should be free from having healthy parts of their most intimate sexual organs either damaged or removed, before they can understand what is at stake in such an intervention and agree to it themselves.

Female genital mutilation in sierra leone: forms, reliability of reported status, and accuracy of related demographic and health survey questions

Objective. To determine forms of female genital mutilation (FGM), assess consistency between self-reported and observed FGM status, and assess the accuracy of Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) FGM questions in Sierra Leone. Methods. This cross-sectional study, conducted between October 2010 and April 2012, enrolled 558 females aged 12–47 from eleven antenatal clinics in northeast Sierra Leone. Data on demography, FGM status, and self-reported anatomical descriptions were collected. Genital inspection confirmed the occurrence and extent of cutting. Results. All participants reported FGM status; 4 refused genital inspection. Using the WHO classification of FGM, 31.7% had type Ib; 64.1% type IIb; and 4.2% type IIc. There was a high level of agreement between reported and observed FGM prevalence (81.2% and 81.4%, resp.). There was no correlation between DHS FGM responses and anatomic extent of cutting, as 2.7% reported pricking; 87.1% flesh removal; and 1.1% that genitalia was sewn closed. Conclusion. Types I and II are the main forms of FGM, with labia majora alterations in almost 5% of cases. Self-reports on FGM status could serve as a proxy measurement for FGM prevalence but not for FGM type. The DHS FGM questions are inaccurate for determining cutting extent.

The Applicability of Behaviour Change in Intervention Programmes Targeted at Ending Female Genital Mutilation in the EU: Integrating Social Cognitive and Community Level Approaches

With increased migration, female genital mutilation (FGM) also referred to as female circumcision or female genital cutting is no longer restricted to Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. The European Parliament estimates that up to half a million women living in the EU have been subjected to FGM, with a further 180,000 at risk. Aware of the limited success of campaigns addressing FGM, the World Health Organization recommended a behavioural change approach be implemented in order to end FGM. To date, however, little progress has been made in adopting a behaviour change approach in strategies aimed at ending FGM. Based on research undertaken as part of the EU's Daphne III programme, which researched FGM intervention programmes linked to African communities in the EU (REPLACE), this paper argues that behaviour change has not been implemented due to a lack of understanding relating to the application of the two broad categories of behaviour change approach: individualistic decision-theoretic and community-change game-theoretic approaches, and how they may be integrated to aid our understanding and the development of future intervention strategies. We therefore discuss how these can be integrated and implemented using community-based participatory action research methods with affected communities.