The Nick of Time

Truly, this is a frightening change in America. I would expect even liberal females to be with me on this:

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.

A member of the academy’s bioethics committee, Dr. Lainie Friedman Ross, associate director of the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics at the University of Chicago, said the panel’s intent was to issue a “statement on safety in a culturally sensitive context.”

Dr. Friedman Ross said that the committee members “oppose all types of female genital cutting that impose risks or physical or psychological harm,” and consider the ritual nick “a last resort,” but that the nick is “supposed to be as benign as getting a girl’s ears pierced. It’s taking a pin and creating a drop of blood.”

What the fuck. No, at the risk of offending some readers, let me say that again - what the fuck. The American Academy of Pediatrics revised its formal policy since 1998 against female genital mutilation (FGM) to say now that doctors need to be more culturally sensitive to cultures who practice FGM - which are largely Muslim - by offering a ritual "nick" of a girl's labia or clitoris.

Oh, and the Academy has backed off calling it FGM - a term they used to use - to call it now "female genital cutting."

What is the practice of FGM? In its most severe form, it involves removal of a girl's exterior genitalia - labia (the lips of the vulva) and the clitoris. Its purpose is, in part, a right of passage but really it is designed to subjugate the woman and make sexual intercourse painful so that she is not tempted to stray from her husband. Unlike male circumcision - the removal of the foreskin - it does not have any Scriptural basis, whereas male circumcision was meant to be a sign of God's covenant with Abraham.

And the Academy knows this. How? Because the purpose of their policy change is to compromise to the families who might take their daughters overseas to have the real bad stuff done:

“If we just told parents, ‘No, this is wrong,’ our concern is they may take their daughters back to their home countries, where the procedure may be more extensive cutting and may even be done without anesthesia, with unsterilized knives or even glass,” she said. “A just-say-no policy may end up alienating these families, who are going to then find an alternative that will do more harm than good.”

I think it is ludicrous to think that a family who would consider flying their daughters overseas to have her genitalia removed will be satisfied by Dr. Friedman Ross' "drop of blood." Instead, removing the criminal aspect would allow doctors who condone this practice to engage in it without repercussions.

Dr. Friedman Ross said, “If you medicalize it and say it’s permissible, is there a possibility that some people will misunderstand it and go beyond a nick? Yes.”

But she said the risk that people denied the ceremonial procedure, usually on the clitoris, would opt for the more harmful one was much more dangerous.

So, it should be common practice in this country for parents to bring their daughter - who is usually pre-pubescent or has just started menstruating - to have her clitoris "nicked" for the sake of cultural sensitivity? "Don't worry, baby, it's like having your ears pierced." I do not recall having to place my feet in stirrups on an examination table while wearing naught but a drape to have my ears pierced.

I intend to call my pediatrician on Monday to ask her if she agrees with this. I think I know the answer but you should check with your own. You may wish to consider changing doctors for your girls.

Another thought - the Academy mentioned that they had to do this after hearing from doctors who said they were "afraid" that the girls would be taken overseas for the procedure and so this was the better idea. I remind those doctors that they are mandated reporters and if they think a child is at risk, it is their duty to report it to the appropriate authorities.

Unless, of course, they support FGM.