The American Academy of Pediatrics does not condone female genital cutting. If on reading that statement your first thought was, “Was that ever in question?” then you are, in my opinion, both (a) morally sane, and (b) behind on the news.*
The American Academy of Pediatrics has rescinded a controversial policy statement raising the idea that doctors in some communities should be able to substitute demands for female genital cutting with a harmless clitoral “pricking” procedure.
“We retracted the policy because it is important that the world health community understands the AAP is totally opposed to all forms of female genital cutting, both here in the U.S. and anywhere else in the world,” said AAP President Judith S. Palfrey.
The contentious policy statement, issued in April, had condemned the practice of female genital cutting overall. But a small portion of statement suggesting the pricking procedure riled U.S. advocacy groups and survivors of female genital cutting.
Here is my favorite line from the news report:
On Thursday the AAP stated the group will not condone doctors to provide any kind of “clitoral nick.” The AAP also clarified nicking a girl or woman’s genitals is forbidden under a 1996 federal law banning female genital mutilation.
In other words, the AAP decided that it might not be a good policy to condone committing a federal crime.
I can hear your second thought, “But what about male circumcision? Isn’t it a form of genital cutting?” My answer: Yes, but because male circumsicion can be medically beneficial, it is a practice that can be condoned by pediatricians. Female genital cutting, however, is a purely cultural practice and should not be carried out by a doctor.
Which leaves us with final thought that I’ll leave for you to discuss: Can we legitimately oppose the practice of female genital cutting for religious, ethnic or cultural reasons while defending the practice of male circumcision on the same grounds?
*If you were unaware that this was being considered you can blame me. I was intending to write about the proposal on this blog a few weeks ago and it slipped my mind.
May 28th, 2010 | 10:03 am
“Can we legitimately oppose the practice of female genital cutting for religious, ethnic or cultural reasons while defending the practice of male circumcision on the same grounds?”
Not without being hypocrites.
Check out this comparison of views on male circumcision in the US with female circ in Africa. They are practically identical.
http://www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/mgmfgm.html
May 28th, 2010 | 10:28 am
Yes and no…
On the one hand, I was mildly shocked by the comments on the website Matt suggested–to be honest no one in my family, nor of my close friends, nor of my husband’s family, have been circumcised. Noone thinks it’s gross, boys learn to clean themselves, and in quiet conversations on the topic wives don’t have an issue with uncircumcized males. Who thinks that au natural is gross?
Of course, the main difference between male and female circumcision is that at one point God actually commanded male circumcision for the Jews. Medical problems with it have been unproven, and in general while it may be painful for an infant it doesn’t have documented long-term problems.
Female circumcision, on the other hand, is performed to actually hinder a woman’s enjoyment of the marital act. Additionally, it has been documented to cause long term medical problems in some women, including extensive scarring and severe, lifelong pain.
So while male circumcision is unnecessary and possibly unsightly, it shouldn’t be included in a list of child abuse!
May 28th, 2010 | 11:36 am
It depends on what a “prick” of the clitoris means. I assume the point is that it doesn’t cause any damage but satisfies the ritual desires of the family. If so, I am inclined to support the idea. It would seem to be not absolutely forbidden because it does not cause long-term or serious damage, and, given the context of full genital mutilation, IMO cannot be interpreted by any party as anything but a step away from that practice and therefore a step forward for girls and women. I do not think that any individual girl needs to sacrifice herself in order to advance women’s rights faster than the frustratingly slow but more natural pace that history and human nature allow.
May 28th, 2010 | 11:57 am
Umm.. I have to disagree there. There ARE problems that have been proven with male circumcision. The rates of these problems have yet to be nailed down, but admittedly they might be rare. A few problems are:
1. Skin bridges: This is where shaft skin adheres to the glans of the penis, making a fold of skin that is unsightly, and can make erections very painful.
2. Erectile problems: The infant penis is not fully developed. It grows considerable during puberty. A doctor has no way of knowing how the circumcision will affect penile development ten years later. Taking a tiny bit of skin from one boy may be more damaging than taking a lot of skin from another. This leads to a lot of problems. One is that it can cause a radical curvature, making the end of the penis turn at ninety degree angle during an erection. It can also cause tightness, causing the shaft skin to be tight as a drum, making masturbation or sex painful. It can also result in pulling surrounding skin or scrotal skin up the shaft, causing hair to grow ON THE PENIS.
3. Death: There have been studies shown that at least 100 baby boys a year die in the US from circumcision. This could also be very under-reported, as many doctors may end up chalking it up to an infection. This incidence of death would be unheard of on an adult male, where the penis has been fully developed and the procedure actually has a considerable planning stage, something simply not done in infant circumcision.
5 Scarring: Yes, scarring! Every circumcision leaves a scar around the male penis. The effect of it differs from male to male.
4: Psychological implications: This is one that I have suffered from myself. There is a growing movement on the internet which has brought about information on the actual function of the foreskin, and the intentional tissue damage that circumcision causes. The whole medical establishment refuses to make it mandatory to inform males who have been circumcised exactly what has happened. Upon finding this, many men find themselves in a state of mental distress. I personally felt that my parents betrayed me, making the choice I would not have made myself over my own sexuality.
Finally, there is no medical benefit to male circumcision that cannot be contradicted in real word settings. Some say that it reduces the chance for penile cancer. However, take a look at Denmark. It has one of the lowest rates of elective circumcision AND penile cancer in the world. Some say it reduces chance of infections (which can be treated without surgery). However, Sweden has half the rate of UTIs that the US does, and the vast majority of the population is left intact. It should be left up to the individual if these benefits, which can all be mitigated by simple, non-surgical procedures, are worth sacrificing the most sensitive part of their sexual organs.
May 28th, 2010 | 1:26 pm
A recent study in the USA put the death rate from neonatal circumcision as 9.1 per 100,000 operations with, of course, many more non-fatal operation complications (Thymos: Journal of Boyhood Studies, Volume 4, Number 1 / Spring 2010, pages 78-90)
… yes there are big, big problems with male circumcision.
Search today’s news and you will find quite a different opinion from Dutch doctors on circumcision: “AMSTERDAM (Reuters Life!) – The Royal Dutch Medical Association on Thursday suggested a possible ban on elective circumcisions for young boys, saying they were medically unnecessary and violated children’s rights.”
May 28th, 2010 | 3:06 pm
When my wife and I were attending the free birthing classes offered by the hospital prior to the birth of our first son, I asked the pediatrician who came to talk to us about the medical benefits of circumcision. He said there is no more hotly contested and politicized issue in all of pediatric literature than circumcision.
Whatever the judgment of the experts, however, I think it has to be conceded that the “medical benefits” justification is ex post facto. The practice of circumcision is carried on mostly by cultural inertia—some men want their children circumcised so that they can “look like them,” for example.
Moreover, if we’re going to contest non-medically necessary genital cutting—and I think we should—I wonder why we’re discussing clitorectomies and pediatricians. Isn’t plastic surgery the giant pink elephant in the room? Doesn’t *that* kind of non-necessary genital cutting sit right smack dab in the middle of America?
May 28th, 2010 | 10:32 pm
If giving up male circumcision could prevent female mutilation, then it would be well worth it.
There were once reasons for the practice intertwined with what was deemed to be God’s commands. Now, God has enlightened us with the knowledge that things are different. It is a new age, and the holy Wisdom has always worked with her totality of cause and reason and revelation as part of the fabric of the Universe, which teaches that the Lord our God is One God.
In NT terms, the logos brings life not only to the expression of revelation through intratrinitarion affection and communion but also directly to the image of God in reflection.
In more mundane notions, the life of the HS is not stagnant but offers to keep the time of creation in tune with the time of the Creator.
Which all means, circumcision, like the first tick of time, is in the past.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact