AAP shifting FGM polocy - Page 2

[Claire and Boys]

Originally Posted by Pookietooth

Yikes! I understand wanting to be culturally sensitive, but what about bodily integrity? Isn't that a basic human right?

obviously not in the USA

[Raine822]

The laws vary on tattoos and piercings. However, as stated before most good tattoo artists will have policies of their own. All three of my tattoo artists will not do anything if child is under 16. Also, they make sure even if 16 to question the decision as is permanent. None will agree to tattoo names ect for minors.

[K703]

Originally Posted by Raine822

The laws vary on tattoos and piercings. However, as stated before most good tattoo artists will have policies of their own. All three of my tattoo artists will not do anything if child is under 16. Also, they make sure even if 16 to question the decision as is permanent. None will agree to tattoo names ect for minors.

Then again ideally most good doctors would have policies against surgical procedures that are neither medically necessary nor done with the consent of the individual being operated on. We know how far that is from the truth.

[2boyzmama]

I have been thinking about this since last night...I truly can not understand how they can outright say that it is illegal, then support a "ritual nick"? WTH is that anyway? Where/what do they "nick"? And at what age would that be done anyway?

Never mind, I don't care. I'm still just stuck on how this is legal. I understand cultural sensitivity. I understand the fear that these parents will go "underground" to do it and how that's much much worse. I understand the desire that if they feel like they can't stop it, then they can at least minimize it and make it "safe" (ugh, as if this is safe at all). I get it, I do, but it is still ILLEGAL. How can they publish something like this and not be commiting legal suicide??? How can they justify this?????

When discussing circumcision, there are at least the purported medical benefits (even though we all know they are false). But this is a case of doing something purely because it is cultural, with no (NONE!!) supposed medical benefits, contradictory or otherwise, and the AAP is okay with it?

My god what is this country coming to. Truly.

[Raine822]

k703, You just made me realize how sad it is that a tattoo artist would be more concerned about a non consenting minor than a medical doctor.

[Mama~Love]

Originally Posted by 2boyzmama

I have been thinking about this since last night...I truly can not understand how they can outright say that it is illegal, then support a "ritual nick"? WTH is that anyway? Where/what do they "nick"? And at what age would that be done anyway?

Never mind, I don't care. I'm still just stuck on how this is legal. I understand cultural sensitivity. I understand the fear that these parents will go "underground" to do it and how that's much much worse. I understand the desire that if they feel like they can't stop it, then they can at least minimize it and make it "safe" (ugh, as if this is safe at all). I get it, I do, but it is still ILLEGAL. How can they publish something like this and not be commiting legal suicide??? How can they justify this?????

When discussing circumcision, there are at least the purported medical benefits (even though we all know they are false). But this is a case of doing something purely because it is cultural, with no (NONE!!) supposed medical benefits, contradictory or otherwise, and the AAP is okay with it?

My god what is this country coming to. Truly.

I agree with your every word.

[hkowell1]

Ok, I might get blasted for this...however, "Cultural Sensitivity" is pretty lite language for something that is Cultural Norm. I don't know how many of the women here have worked with women from cutting cultures or even been to Lectures etc... We are not going to change how these women feel about their bodies or their womanhood/motherhood by telling them sorry you just can't do that anymore. This is ingrained into the very meaning of what it is to be a woman. Please don't get me wrong. Im not advocating for FGM.
Im sure none of us supports drug abuse/sex trades-however a good doctor/case manager is going to talk about safety-Many outreach worker hand out clean needles, condoms etc...the acts are illegal, but the over all goal is to keep people as safe as possible.

Its a slow process to rid the culture of negative rituals/behaviors etc...
and it begins with education

[calebsmommy25]

I don't even know what to say.

[Rico'sAlice]

Originally Posted by 2boyzmama

When discussing circumcision, there are at least the purported medical benefits (even though we all know they are false). But this is a case of doing something purely because it is cultural, with no (NONE!!) supposed medical benefits, contradictory or otherwise, and the AAP is okay with it?

Actually, I think I recall that some of the HIV/male circumcision studies or some other survey also "demonstrated" a protective affect from female "circumcision". I'll see if I can find those links.

ETA:
This is not specifically what I was remembering, but for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting#HIV
Kanki et al. (1992) reported that, in Senegalese prostitutes, women who had undergone FGC had a significantly decreased risk of HIV-2 infection when compared to those who had not.[55]

Stallings et al. (2009) reported that, in Tanzanian women, the risk of HIV among women who had undergone FGC was roughly half that of women who had not; the association remained significant after adjusting for region, household wealth, age, lifetime partners, union status, and recent ulcer..[54]

Now there are also of plenty of studies showing the opposite conclusion, confounding factors, explanations, etc. But that's true for male as well. And of course some of the medical issues with male circ just haven't been studied with females. Like if there was a sizable population of circumcised females in western countries maybe a study could be done on protective measures from urinary tract infections or something.

[fruitful womb]

Originally Posted by 2boyzmama

When discussing circumcision, there are at least the purported medical benefits (even though we all know they are false). But this is a case of doing something purely because it is cultural, with no (NONE!!) supposed medical benefits, contradictory or otherwise, and the AAP is okay with it?

My god what is this country coming to. Truly.

Give it time. Proponents for FGM will soon fabricate "studies" to show "medical benefits" that support their ritual. The path down this road started as soon as the AAP watered down FGM to FGC for "Cultural Sensitivity".

History repeats itself.

[jessjgh1]

Originally Posted by calebsmommy25

I don't even know what to say.

That's about all I can think too.
Jessica

[KaylaBeanie]

Cultural sensitivity to FGC and cultural acceptance of FGC are totally different concepts. If a first generation immigrant couple has never even heard that people don't perform it here and asks their doctor about it, the proper response is not "Dear GOD, you child mutilators, go away before I call the cops!" The correct response would be to calmly discuss it and debunk the myths they have grown up believing, doing your best to get the point across in the least offensive way possible. I totally agree with the AAP there. I also agree that there needs to be some sort of training in place for OBs and urologists for how to deal with the issue in a polite way without endorsing any form of genital cutting.

[jessjgh1]

Yes, but it is not proper to offer to then do just a small 'symbolic' cut, if after explaining that the US doesn't do genital cutting (on girls) and the parents still want it done.
That's beyond cultural sensitivity.

From Liz above...

Originally Posted by dachshundqueen

What I do find disturbing is the language stating that a ritual nick performed by the pediatrician would build trust between hopsitals/doctors and the immigrant community and would be a good compromise. The softening of the AAP stance that this "milder" form of FGM is acceptable is mind boggling.

Agreed.
Jessica

[KaylaBeanie]

Originally Posted by jessjgh1

Yes, but it is not proper to offer to then do just a small 'symbolic' cut, if after explaining that the US doesn't do genital cutting (on girls) and the parents still want it done.
That's beyond cultural sensitivity.

Jessica

That's exactly my point. The AAP is talking about cultural sensitivity (a GOOD, awesome thing!) and then going a step too far and promoting the condoning of FGC.

[Pumpkinheadmommy]

At least they mentioned this:

Some forms of FGC are less extensive than the newborn male circumcision commonly performed in the West.

[QueenOfTheMeadow]

I just want to remind everyone that actionable(aka intactivist) posts need to go into the Activism forum. Please feel free to start a thread there.

[jessjgh1]

Equality Now has information about this issue on their website.
Jessica

[Fyrestorm]

I just read the Equality Now release as well as the Intact America response...why are neither of them stating the obvious? It's only 4 more years until the boys that were cut after the FGM ban will be reaching the age of consent...I have a feeling LOTS of them are going to be really mad....

I smell law suits based on the 4th amendment and the AAP doing a major CYA. They can say that they are following equal protection if they are ok with harming both sexes.

This also helps to cover them in regards to the 'surgeries' they preform on intersex children.

[jessjgh1]

I've posted links and info on this on my facebook- and not said a word about male circumicsion.... so far no one has commented. I'm a little scared that people just don't even get this on a base level. I don't expect most of them to make leaps to MGM.... but gee, even before I had my son and knew anything about circumcision (I figured male circ as the norm, hand't really thought about it) if I'd heard about this I would be thinking WTF- in the US?? That's outrageous?

Jessica

[fruitful womb]

do they really think they're above the law?