Advertisement

Journal of Bioethical Inquiry

, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 549–555 | Cite as

On Female Genital Cutting: Factors to be Considered When Confronted With a Request to Re-infibulate

  • Mona SalehEmail author
  • Phoebe Friesen
  • Veronica Ades
Symposium: Sex, Gender, and the Body
  • 312 Downloads

Abstract

According to the World Health Organization, female genital cutting affects millions of girls and women worldwide, particularly on the African continent and in the Middle East. This paper presents a plausible, albeit hypothetical, clinical vignette and then explores the legal landscape as well as the ethical landscape physicians should use to evaluate the adult patient who requests re-infibulation. The principles of non-maleficence, beneficence, justice, and autonomy are considered for guidance, and physician conscientious objection to this procedure is discussed as well. Analyses of law and predominant principles of bioethics fail to yield a clear answer regarding performing female genital cutting or re-infibulation on an adult in the United States. Physicians should consider the patient’s physical, mental, and social health when thinking about female genital cutting and should understand the deep-rooted cultural significance of the practice.

Keywords

Female genital cutting Female genital mutilation Re-infibulation Beneficence Autonomy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Rudin Fellowship in Medical Ethics and Humanities of NYU School of Medicine for its funding support. The Rudin Fellowship required submission of this manuscript for publication although the fellowship committee was not involved in the writing of this manuscript.

References

  1. Abdulcadir, J., L. Catania, M.J. Hindin, L. Say, P. Petignat, O. Abdulcadir. 2016. Female genital mutilation: A visual reference and learning tool for healthcare professionals. Obstetrics & Gynecology 128(5): 958–963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. al-Sabbagh, M.L. 1996. Islamic ruling on male and female circumcision. Alexandria: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  3. Blasimme, A., and E. Vayena. 2016. Becoming partners, retaining autonomy: Ethical considerations on the development of precision medicine. BMC Medical Ethics 17(67).Google Scholar
  4. Beauchamp, T.L., and J.F. Childress. 2001. Principles of biomedical ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Cantor, J. 2006. When an adult female patient seeks ritual genital alteration: Ethics, law, and the parameters of participation. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 117(4): 1158–1164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cook, R.J., and B.M. Dickens. 2010. Special commentary on the issue of reinfibulation. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 109(2): 97–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Goldberg, H., P. Stupp, E. Okoroh, G. Besera, D. Goodman, and I. Daniel. 2016. Female genital mutilation/cutting in the United States: Updated estimates of women and girls at risk, 2012. Public Health Reports 131(2): 340–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kopelman, L.M. 2005. The incompatibility of the United Nations’ goals and conventionalist ethical relativism. Developing World Bioethics 5(3): 234–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. 1978. The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Bethesda, Maryland: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.Google Scholar
  10. Nobile, M. 2014. The WHO definition of health: A critical reading. Medicine and Law 33(2): 33–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Scheper-Hughes, N. 1991. Virgin territory: The male discovery of the clitoris. Medical Anthropology Quarterly 5(1): 25–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). 2005. Female genital mutilation/cutting: A statistical exploration. New York: UNICEF.Google Scholar
  13. ––––. 2013. Female genital mutilation/cutting: A statistical overview and exploration of the dynamics of change. New York: UNICEF.Google Scholar
  14. U.N. Committee Against Torture (CAT). 2008. General Comment No. 2: Implementation of Article 2 by States Parties. Google Scholar
  15. World Health Organization (WHO). 2006. Constitution of the World Health Organization. Basic Documents, 45th edition, supplement.Google Scholar
  16. ––––. 2008. Eliminating female genital mutilation: An interagency statement UNAIDS, UNDP, UNECA, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNHCHR, UNHCR, UNICEF, UNIFEM, WHO. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  17. ––––. 2016. WHO guidelines on the management of health complications from female genital mutilation. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Pty Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.New York University School of MedicineNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.New York University Medical CenterNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.New York University Medical CenterNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations