Am. Academy of Pediatrics Backs Ritual ‘Nick’ as Female Circumcision Option

[woo me with science]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/health/policy/07cuts.html

By PAM BELLUCK
Published: May 6, 2010

In a controversial change to a longstanding policy concerning the practice of female circumcision in some African and Asian cultures, the American Academy of Pediatrics is suggesting that American doctors be given permission to perform a ceremonial pinprick or “nick” on girls from these cultures if it would keep their families from sending them overseas for the full circumcision.

The academy’s committee on bioethics, in a policy statement last week, said some pediatricians had suggested that current federal law, which “makes criminal any nonmedical procedure performed on the genitals” of a girl in the United States, has had the unintended consequence of driving some families to take their daughters to other countries to undergo mutilation.

“It might be more effective if federal and state laws enabled pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a ritual nick as a possible compromise to avoid greater harm,” the group said.

But some opponents of female genital mutilation, or F.G.M., denounced the statement.

“I am sure the academy had only good intentions, but what their recommendation has done is only create confusion about whether F.G.M. is acceptable in any form, and it is the wrong step forward on how best to protect young women and girls,” said Representative Joseph Crowley, Democrat of New York, who recently introduced a bill to toughen federal law by making it a crime to take a girl overseas to be circumcised. “F.G.M. serves no medical purpose, and it is rightfully banned in the U.S.”

Georganne Chapin, executive director of an advocacy group called Intact America, said she was “astonished that a group of intelligent people did not see the utter slippery slope that we put physicians on” with the new policy statement. “How much blood will parents be satisfied with?”

....(more at link)

[WeDidIt]

1. That's some fucked up shit right there.

Fuck that shit. I've lost ALL RESPECT for the American Academy of Pediatrics and can no longer trust anything they say. As far as I'm concerned, they are a radical body of fundamentalists until this shit gets put down.

[Liberal_in_LA]

2. +1000000000000000000

[WeDidIt]

3. NOTHING the American Academy of Pediatrics says can be trusted now.

NOTHING!

[BlueIris]

31. No kidding. They just blew their credibility with me for life.

Ugly pigs.

[readmoreoften]

4. Pragmatically speaking, if I was a physician, I'd prick a baby to save it from

having its clitoris cut off. They're the folks dealing with the reality of this fucked up situation.

(Meanwhile, every 5 minutes a doctor cuts a full-sized vagina into an infant girl with AIS so that her vaginal canals "look normal" for her caregivers. This, on the other hand, gets no press...)

[WeDidIt]

5. That's not enough

It's a phony attempt to appease, but it won't.

The cultures that perform female genital mutilation demand full removal of the clitoris and "nicking" will never be enough. You must alter the culture, not attempt to appease bullshit child abuse.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has lost all credibility with this move. Those who trust ANYTHING they say from now on do so at the risk of their children.

Any doctor that performs a "nicking" should spend fifteen years in prison for child sexual abuse and be branded a sex offender the rest of their lives.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Maru Kitteh]

6. ALL genital mutilation should be ended.

[WeDidIt]

7. PRecisely, the AAP guidelines are nothing short of infant sexual abuse

Physicians following these guidelines are sex offenders.

No compromise on this one.

[Ms. Toad]

8. Does the same apply to physicians performing circumcision? n/t

[WeDidIt]

9. Only if the head of the penis is pierced or removed

since physically that's the same thing as nicking or removing the clitoris.

[Ms. Toad]

19. The procedures are not so dissimilar as you may believe.

First - the location of the ceremonial nicking is not necessarily the clitoris (according to the article) - nor is female circumcision, in general. Although female circumcision often does involves removing the clitoris, it also includes both less and more dramatic operations which are not limited to (and do necessarily not require) removal of - or injury to - the clitoris.

And - male circumcision, performed at the age it is performed in the US, does generally involve the equivalent of "nicking" the clitoris. At the age at which circumcision is typically performed, the foreskin adheres to the glans of the penis requiring it to be surgically separated - injuring the head of the penis in the process - in order to remove the foreskin.

I find it hard to reconcile being outraged at permitting a ceremonial substitute for female circumcision while at the same time supporting circumcision of male children for non-medical reasons.

[TalkingDog]

15. IMHO yes.

While some boys have problems with adhesions if they are not circumcised, that is a medical problem that needs a medical solution.

Do you know how a circumcision is performed? I didn't until I watched a movie called "Rough Cut" A nurse who will no longer perform them for ethical reasons explained: They stimulate the penis until it is erect, then they cut it.

Did you know that the earlier a memory or association is created in an infants mind, the deeper that memory is stored in the brain. In the first few days, things that are learned are primal. They are about survival. So they can never be erased, not by soothing, not by caring.....

So the first sexual feelings a boy experiences...literally the primal experience of sensuality is forever associated with unbearable pain.


That is sick.

[Ms. Toad]

23. I have watched videos of male circumcision.

I don't thing sexual stimulation is routinely a part of circumcision (at least not from any description I've seen or video I've watched) - but the foreskin does generally adhere to, and need to be surgically separated from, the glans in order to sever the foreskin.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. I Have Been To Briss' And Have Never Seen It Either

Though the procedure made me uncomfortable. My parents (Jewish) had a doctor perform mine, much to the chagrin of my grandparents.

And I really don't want to get in a debate about circumcision because it turns into the clash of absolutes, with people arguing to no resolution.

Also, the suggestion that somehow the pain associated with circumcision traumatizes boys when they become men is a bit dramatic.

[Nikki Stone1]

10. OMFG.

This has been a bad year all around for women.

FUCK!

[ismnotwasm]

11. Where in the fuck

Do they get the idea that some American ass 'ceremonial pinprick' is going to stop FGM? This makes no sense on any level and is complete bullshit.

[TreasonousBastard]

13. Read the article and find out where the idea came from. Then...

come back and say you're sorry.

[ismnotwasm]

18. I did read it

I read it again, just for you. It doesn't have nearly enough information about FGM. I've worked with this population, and while education is definitely the key, I don't how a pinprick-- ritual or otherwise in any way will satisfy the underlying causes. There are several types of FGM, the pinprick might--might-- satisfy the most benign types. If respect of culture is what they're trying to accomplish it's not happening. There is a often a profound distrust of American medicine in the first place, and American medicine is not particularly respectful of the culture of others. Where it would work is with families who don't really want to do it in the first place, so there is that.

I'll tell you what. I'll ask around at work with the nurses who work with this situation more than I do and see what they say. If I find just one who thinks this is a good idea, I'll rethink the whole thing.

[TreasonousBastard]

12. I don't get the arguments against this...

it is so indoctrinated among some cultures that parents will send their daughters back "home" to have it done when it isn't done here.

So, an insignificant, symbolic incision that has been proven to appease some parents and allow them to forgo the pain their daughters would undergo is somehow a bad thing? It is better to have even the symbolic incision outlawed here and drive them do it "over there"?

(Someone finally found out how to make zero tolerance work, or are people just forgetting it never works.)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. What An Odd And Terrible Procedure

At least most of the dietary and hygiene proscriptions and prescriptions in the Bible had some therapeutic benefits. This procedure is only done to make sex less enjoyable. Messed up...

[TreasonousBastard]

16. It is, but the point here is to stop it, so what's the problem.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. I Agree.

If make believe female circumcision prevents these families from having real female circumcision , which is flipping barbaric, maybe it's not such a bad thing.

[woo me with science]

20. Maybe doctors could offer to inflict some small, non-serious bruises or burns on children

of abusive parents. Maybe it would appease the parents enough so that they won't feel the need to go home and beat up the kids themselves.

Might give it a try, anyway...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. That's A Red Herring

Look, the ritual is flipping barbaric and serves no therapeutic purpose but alas it is a ritual. I don't know of any culture where it's acceptable to beat your children for the Hell of it which is what you implied.

I'll let you play doctor . Jamal from Somalia says he wants to have his daughter circumcised. What are you going to do?

Wouldn't you at least entertain the possibility of doing a "make believe" one to avoid the prospect of genital mutilation?

[woo me with science]

25. If the injury were truly "make believe," then sure.

Bring in the Reiki practitioners and have them wave their hands in the air and manipulate the "energy" over the clitoris. I would be fine with that. But it is not an American physician's job to inflct any damage on any baby girl's clitoris when there is no medical reason to do so.

You are right that beating up your kid is not an accepted ritual here in the United States. Female genital mutilation never has been, either. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I think we ought to stick to that standard.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. Here's My Take

If the parents are dead set on having their daughter circumcised, and many have went to great lengths to have the procedure performed, and a doctor can placate them with a pretend one I don't see the problem.

I have read accounts of it's victims and the stories are heart wrenching.

What's a a doctor to do?

[woo me with science]

29. A doctor should first do no harm,

from the Hippocratic Oath.

I do hear you. Yes, it is absolutely an emotional and heart-wrenching dilemma. But the practice would still condone purposeful, needless injury by physicians to healthy children. The injury is less severe, but it is absolutely not "pretend." IMO it is wrong and morally indefensible to put physicians in that position.

But even more importantly...Others have stated elsewhere in the thread that it is the culture that must be changed. How does that ever happen if we are bending our own culture to give even symbolic sanctioning to this practice that is barbaric in its very purpose and conception? I think we offer more significant help to many more children down the road by expressing clearly to newcomers through our laws and institutions what we believe about female genital mutilation, and why.

First, do no harm.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. .

.

[BlueIris]

22. Holy shit.

Most disturbing story I've read all month.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

27. I can not believe anyone would even consider token support of the barbarous practice

Cultural and religious sensitivity and accommodation be damned. There are some superior values to be found in western culture

[WildEyedLiberal]

28. +100

I find even lip service to this hideous barbarism appalling.

[BlueIris]

30. The idea that anyone is trying to justify female genital mutilation as being part of any valid

cultural "tradition" or religious belief is appalling to me. It's pure misogyny. Attempting to disguise it as "a cultural thing" is a sad, pathetic way to try to excuse the hate.

[DailyGrind51]

34. Remember back in the '70s when "All cultural traditions should be considered valid and respected"?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

36. Yes. It was BS then, it is BS now

[madokie]

37. What is it and whats the purpose

sorry but I have no clue. I have my thoughts but knowing me I'm probably wrong. Plus it may make for some spirited discussion :-)

[proud2BlibKansan]

38. This is disgusting

[frustrated_lefty]

39. I'm with DemocraticSinceBirth on this one.

Some have claimed the first responsibility of the physician is to do no harm. Sorry, but no. That's the Wiccan crede, not the Hippocratic oath. The Hippocratic oath is more about practicing medicne in an ethical manner.

Clitoridectomy is wrong. If a doctor can prevent that from happening by providing a pin-prick at birth, what's the problem? I ask this as a circumcised male.

I really don't get the all or nothing crowd. Deeply ingrained habits take time to change. It would be great if change happened overnight, but it usually doesn't.