It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Are U.S. Doctors Allowing Female Genital Mutilation?

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   

The American Academy of Pediatrics has issued an outrageous new policy on female genital mutilation, endorsing 'nicking' female genitalia as a cultural compromise.



At the end of last month, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued a revised policy statement on female genital mutilation (FGM) called "ritual genital cutting of female minors," suggesting that the federal and state law in the U.S. should permit pediatricians to offer a ritual "nick" of girls' genitalia as a compromise to appease the cultural needs of their immigrant clients. International women's rights organizations from the U.S., Africa, and Europe were quick to respond to this outrageous proposition calling on the AAP to retract its 2010 statement and revert back to its much stronger 1998 statement on the subject. The AAP's response, however, has thus far been underwhelming and they continue to justify this latest position on three grounds:

• "Nicking" is a minor procedure equivalent to a pin prick or ear piercing and has no harmful health consequences.

• Offering the "nick" demonstrates cultural sensitivity in serving immigrant populations.

• The "nick" is a "compromise" that could prevent families from performing more severe forms of FGM on their daughters

FGM, which involves the partial or total removal of the female genitalia, is carried out across Africa, some countries in Asia and the Middle East, and by immigrants of practicing communities living around the world. It is estimated that up to 140 million women and girls around the world are affected by it. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimated in 1997 that over 168,000 girls and women living in the U.S. have either been, or are at risk of being, subjected to FGM.

Continued at link

Source

Let me ask everyone something. WTF....?




posted on May, 11 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   
This cultural sensitivity crap in healthcare has gone too far. Im an RN and it's disgusting. Look if you live in the US you need to adapt to our culture and our way of doing things. Not the othe way around. And we wonder why America is such a mess. Multiculturalism is killing us. Borders, language, and culture. If you can't protect these things you have no nation left. Wake up America! Take back your damn country! Assimilate or leave!

[edit on 11-5-2010 by Zosynspiracy]



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   
The Chinese eat dog. I guess we should legalize that? In the Phillipines they eat cat. Let's let minorities open up restuarants serving dogs and cats? My god! This is AMERICA people...........we do things a certain way because it is OUR CULTURE NOT YOURS! If you want to mutilate your daughters genitalia go the F back to Africa.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Crossfate
 


This is fantastic. You can have your daughter mutliated but can't get her a tattoo. Now I don't believe you should be able to get a child tattooed, I just saying.

How long before they allow you to keep your daughters home from school and not educate them?

Not too long, IMO



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   
I have worked with many of the mid-eastern pediatricians. I distinctly remember a pediatrician telling me that the oxygen concentration in a child, below 93% was OK. WT$! Now this group want to mutilate little girls!

This is disgusting! And again, another crime against humanity will go unchecked! Soon, sterilization will be introduced into Amerika, and the sheeple will accept that too.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   
I wonder how this 'nick' compares to male circumcision.

I'm against it all, female or male, unless it's for urgent medical reasons, or it's done once the child is old enough to consent.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   
I find it pretty hypocritical to criticize this measure in a country where, according to the WHO, up to 75% of men are circumcised, often shortly after birth. Why should boys not be protected from sexual mutilation too?



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Breizhoo
 


Apples and oranges. There are significant health benefits to circumcision, not simply cultural mores.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


Those benefits are very minor, and the literature is mixed. Some studies have shown benefits in resistance to STDS, others have not found the same result.

I don't think these reasons are good enough in a westernised country where personal hygiene and education about condoms will be at a good level.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by harpsounds
 


There are several:

1 Many older men, who have bladder or prostate gland problems, also develop difficulties with their foreskins due to their surgeon's handling, cleaning, and using instruments. Some of these patients will need circumcising. Afterwards it is often astonishing to find some who have never ever seen their glans (knob) exposed before!

2 Some older men develop cancer of the penis - about 1 in 1000 - fairly rare, but tragic if you or your son are in that small statistic. Infant circumcision gives almost 100% protection, and young adult circumcision also gives a large degree of protection.

3 Cancer of the cervix in women is due to the Human Papilloma Virus. It thrives under and on the foreskin from where it can be transmitted during intercourse. An article in the British Medical Journal in April 2002 suggested that at least 20% of cancer of the cervix would be avoided if all men were circumcised. Surely that alone makes it worth doing?

4 Protection against HIV and AIDS. Another British Medical Journal article in May 2000 suggested that circumcised men are 8 times less likely to contract the HIV virus. (It is very important here to say that the risk is still far too high and that condoms and safe sex must be used - this applies also to preventing cancer of the cervix in women who have several partners.)

A BBC television programme in November 2000 showed two Ugandan tribes across the valley from one another. One practised circumcision and had very little AIDS, whereas, it was common in the other tribe, who then also started circumcising. This programme showed how the infection thrived in the lining of the foreskin, making it much easier to pass on.

5 As with HIV, so some protection exists against other sexually transmitted infections. Accordingly, if a condom splits or comes off, there is some protection for the couple. However, the only safe sex is to stick to one partner or abstain.

6 Lots of men, and their partners, prefer the appearance of their penis after circumcision, It is odour-free, it feels cleaner, and they enjoy better sex. Awareness of a good body image is a very important factor in building self confidence.

7 Balanitis is an unpleasant, often recurring, inflammation of the glans. It is quite common and can be prevented by circumcision.

8 Urinary tract infections sometimes occur in babies and can be quite serious. Circumcision in infancy makes it 10 times less likely.

www.circinfo.com...



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Breizhoo
 


In terms of circumcision, the act of cutting out the clitoris of a female is slightly more dangerous, due to the risk of infection and the amount of genital mutilation that may take place. There are three different types of mutilation, from type 1 to type 3, each type worse than the other in terms of how much tissue is taken out, as in some cases, there are incisions on the labia etc.

Frankly, doctors should refuse to do such an act to appease the wishes of their ignorant parents of the child. Social services should be notified and the child be taken away. That may sound harsh, but if the doctor refuses, the parents will go through with it anyway.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Breizhoo
I find it pretty hypocritical to criticize this measure in a country where, according to the WHO, up to 75% of men are circumcised, often shortly after birth. Why should boys not be protected from sexual mutilation too?


They should be protected as well.

Hypocritical it may be, but just because one is allowed within the confines of a culture does not mean they both should be. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I'm pretty sure you weren't implying that, but it could be taken that way.

On a more general note; I find this more than a little frightening that they are wavering on this. 'Cultural sensitivity' is all well and good, but there comes a point, when certain cultural conventions are obviously harmful, a physician has an obligation to refuse to do harm.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by harpsounds
 


There are several:

1 Many older men, who have bladder or prostate gland problems, also develop difficulties with their foreskins due to their surgeon's handling, cleaning, and using instruments. Some of these patients will need circumcising. Afterwards it is often astonishing to find some who have never ever seen their glans (knob) exposed before!


Well, then that's really the surgeons fault, and an old man can make an educated decision, unlike a baby.



2 Some older men develop cancer of the penis - about 1 in 1000 - fairly rare, but tragic if you or your son are in that small statistic. Infant circumcision gives almost 100% protection, and young adult circumcision also gives a large degree of protection.


I could chop off my feet to avoid gangrene or atheletes foot, should I do it though?



3 Cancer of the cervix in women is due to the Human Papilloma Virus. It thrives under and on the foreskin from where it can be transmitted during intercourse. An article in the British Medical Journal in April 2002 suggested that at least 20% of cancer of the cervix would be avoided if all men were circumcised. Surely that alone makes it worth doing?


Same as 2., we could cut off a lot of parts of our bodies, but I think we should allow people to make their own choice on that, and not force it on people.



4 Protection against HIV and AIDS. Another British Medical Journal article in May 2000 suggested that circumcised men are 8 times less likely to contract the HIV virus. (It is very important here to say that the risk is still far too high and that condoms and safe sex must be used - this applies also to preventing cancer of the cervix in women who have several partners.)

A BBC television programme in November 2000 showed two Ugandan tribes across the valley from one another. One practised circumcision and had very little AIDS, whereas, it was common in the other tribe, who then also started circumcising. This programme showed how the infection thrived in the lining of the foreskin, making it much easier to pass on.


This is partly what I'm referring to in my post, yes, those studies did show that, but could not be replicated in the USA, a westernised country, so are we sure that's what the true cause was?



5 As with HIV, so some protection exists against other sexually transmitted infections. Accordingly, if a condom splits or comes off, there is some protection for the couple. However, the only safe sex is to stick to one partner or abstain.

6 Lots of men, and their partners, prefer the appearance of their penis after circumcision, It is odour-free, it feels cleaner, and they enjoy better sex. Awareness of a good body image is a very important factor in building self confidence.


I've never had an issue with any partner, I wash my penis every day, and more often when active, so do not have these issues. This kind of basic hygiene is taught across the country.



7 Balanitis is an unpleasant, often recurring, inflammation of the glans. It is quite common and can be prevented by circumcision.


Atheletes foot is quite uncomfortable, and can be solved by removing the feet.



8 Urinary tract infections sometimes occur in babies and can be quite serious. Circumcision in infancy makes it 10 times less likely.


Maybe, to be honest I've not heard that claim before. But I refer to my previous answers about removing feet.



www.circinfo.com...


Something else I would say, is that a couple of times you mention the BMJ, but medical advice in the UK, advises against circumcision, because they don't feel the good outweighs the bad.

Sorry for turning this to Male circumcision, I know the main topic here is female, I feel i've made my points, and will not comment further on males unless i really have to.

[edit on 11/5/2010 by harpsounds]



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Breizhoo
I find it pretty hypocritical to criticize this measure in a country where, according to the WHO, up to 75% of men are circumcised, often shortly after birth. Why should boys not be protected from sexual mutilation too?


They should be.

It's horrendous that any baby is painfully, sexually mutilated.

Actually what the AMA are offering Muslim parents for girls is far less severe than male circumcision.

Circumcision evolved when women were just chattles, and was designed to keep them virgins for as long as their families wanted, and to prevent them wanting sex.

When Mohammed was asked about female circumcision, he said to just do it a little. ("if you cut, do not over do it,") So circumcision is not even a commandment. Obviously, as the practice was well entrenched, Mohammed knew he couldn't stop it, so attempted to mitigate it instead, and his words have been misused ever since.

One would think that these days we are aware and empathic enough to know that a cruel practice designed to prevent women wanting or enjoying sex is just wrong.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   
This is simple.

You cut off a girls vulva or clitoris, you go to jail. If you aren't a citizen, we take your children into care and deport your sorry ass.

If you are a doctor, nurse, back alley wierdo, performing these, you will be stripped of your license. You will go to jail for aggravated assault.

If you are not poor, you will be sued by the department of child services for the care and any surgery your children need while being protected from you and your stupidity.

If you leave the country, you will be tried in abscence and any monetary proceeds in the affliated trade countries will be siezed on behalf of your children.

If you set foot in this country again, you will be jailed. If you set foot in country with an extradition treaty with this coutnry, we'll request you be arrested immediately and forwarded for trial.

We will hound your sorry asses into the ground.

Clear?



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


Fine, but the AMA are not offering to cut off the vulva or clitoris.
They are offering to put a small nick in the little piece of skin that covers the clitoris. What is your opinion of that?

Personally I'm against it anyway, but I wanted to point out the doctors are not proposing anything like what you mentioned.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   
The benefits of male circumcision are completely overdramatized. Many parents especially younger more open minded non religious people are opting not to have their kids circumsized. It's a scientific fact that men can lose up to 30% of their sensation i.e. sexual...........with circumcision. Maybe there is some truth to europeans being better lovers because of it! My father was never circumsized and he was just fine. He was Polish. The US medical establishment is a hysteria filled industry....and most of it if you sift through the BS is unfounded.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 


First its a prick then it's a complete removal. It's a slippery slope. And there is absolutely no medical reason for it. Doctors need to stick to medicine and science not sociology.

[edit on 11-5-2010 by Zosynspiracy]



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


None of those reasons trump losing 20 - 50% of the nerve endings in the penis that circumcision is responsible for. Studies have shown the most sensitive areas of the penis are in the foreskin.

Male and female genital cutting of minors is an abhorrent practice. There is no legitimate justification for it. There will always be people who support it and state it is a good thing.

These people are in denial, so deep in denial they will likely never get out of it.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 06:18 PM
link   
I am adamantly against ANY mutilation of a child's body, genital or otherwise. And that includes the parents deciding for their hermaphrodite baby which gender it should be and allowing a procedure to remove some of the genitals. And that also includes circumcision. It's appalling.

Denouncing this practice of 'nicking' while defending circumcision is highly hypocritical, IMO. Yes, people have their justifications for circumcision that make sense to them, but so do the people who advocate FGM. It all depends on the culture and society we were raised in.

If we were raised in a culture that regularly ate dog just as we eat cattle, it would be no different. It's a blatant hypocrisy to criticize people because they eat a dog and then sit down to a meal of steak and lobster.

I can't believe how closed-minded some Americans are that they simply cannot understand how different cultures do things differently and that we are JUST as weird and freaky as they are, just in our own way. It's baffling to me.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join