Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2010-05-26 NY Times - Doctors Reverse Stand on Circumcision (FGM is bad again)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 2010-05-26 NY Times - Doctors Reverse Stand on Circumcision (FGM is bad again)

    Doctors Reverse Stand on Circumcision

    By Pam Belluck, New York Times
    May 26, 2010

    The American Academy of Pediatrics has reversed its decision last month regarding the practice of female circumcision by some immigrants.

    {https://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/27/health/27brfs-DOCTORSREVER_BRF.html}

    Full Text:
    = = = =
    The American Academy of Pediatrics has reversed its decision last month regarding the practice of female circumcision by immigrants from some African, Middle Eastern and Asian cultures. The academy had suggested in a policy statement that doctors be given permission to perform a ceremonial pinprick or nick on girls if it would keep their families from sending them overseas for the full circumcision.

    Although the nick on a girl’s clitoris is illegal in the United States, the academy’s bioethics panel had noted it is practiced in some countries. The policy statement ignited a storm of criticism from opponents of female genital cutting. Dr. Judith S. Palfrey, president of the academy, said: “We’re saying don’t do it. Do everything that you can to support that family in this tough time, but don’t be pulled into the procedure.”​
    -Ron Low
    [email protected]
    847 414-1692 Chicago

  • #2
    The transient proposed policy they seem to have had of allowing it in place X because it's done in place Y, and if place X doesn't allow it, they'll go to place Y to have it inflicted on the girls anyway, and to worse effect, is such flawed reasoning. If I were to say, American Muslim families can now stone to death girls, but only using rocks no more than 4 inches in size, because otherwise they'll take a so called "dishonoured" female back to the middle east and her death will be even more traumatic with bigger rocks... I would hope everyone could see how that is an absurd, outrageous, illogical statement. But it has the same flawed structural logic as allowing a traumatic injustice to be inflicted in place X, because it happens to be done in place Y. It should be occuring in no place. And the solution is challenging the culture surrounding an unjust practise, not surrendering to the injustice while claiming a less of two evils stance. There is also the long standing gender injustice of male circumcision not being recognised in the same severity.

    Comment

    Working...
    X