Friday, September 24, 2010

Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting Workshop (DISCLAIMER - this is a rather graphic post, so squeamish people should probably skip this one)

Last week I attended a very interesting workshop on Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C), put on by a local NGO focused on fighting FGM/C through educating and sensitizing health professionals. It was very informative, so I thought I would pass on some of what I learned for those of you who might not be familiar with the practice (last chance...STOP HERE if you don't want to read more about this practice):

What is FGM/C exactly? Also sometimes called Female Circumcision, Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting "comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons." The main types of FGM/C are three progressive levels of severity, the mildest being more or less the equivalent of male circumcision (Type 1) and the most severe involving significant removal of the genitalia and suturing (Type 3). Types 1 and 2 are practiced here in the Gambia - Type 3 is not practiced, but on occasion, the flesh can fuse during the healing process in a Type 2 procedure in a way that makes it resemble a Type 3 procedure when fully healed. The painful procedures are generally performed by an elderly women, often a traditional birth attendant, with generally non-sterile cutting instruments like razor blades, knives, and pieces of glass. After the procedure is complete, the wounds are generally dabbed with local materials like ash or cow dung to stop the bleeding. FGM/C is generally done as part of a cultural rite of passage. The age at which girls are cut varies by tribe and region, but it is generally done before puberty, and sometimes as young as newborns. I think that's more than graphic enough for now, so if you're interested in more detail on what these procedures entail, visit this link: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/.

Where is it practiced? FGM/C is a common practice throughout western, eastern, and north-eastern regions of Africa in some countries in Asia and the Middle East, and among certain immigrant communities in North America and Europe. The WHO estimates that 100 to 140 million girls and women worldwide are currently living with the consequences of FGM/C.
In the Gambia, current data shows that 78% of adult women have undergone this practice.

What are the health implications? In addition to inflicting long-term mental and emotional trauma, even the milder forms of FGM/C have very serious implications for a girl or woman's physical health. Immediate physical health complications can include: 1) contracting tetanus, hepatitis, HIV, etc, from the cutting instrument, especially if multiple girls are being cut in a single ceremony; 2) developing an infection in the wound; 3) shock, hemorrhage, anemia; 4) injuries sustained if the child struggles; and 5) urine retention to swelling or fear of pain when passing urine.

Long term physical consequences can include: 1) obstetric fistula, a serious and highly stigmatized medical condition - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstetric_fistula); 2) an increased risk of childbirth complications and infant mortality; 3) recurrent bladder and urinary tract infections, which can lead to infertility in severe cases; and 4) sexual dysfunction.

For women with suturing or severe scarring (Type 3 or Type 2 that healed with significant fusion), the health concerns are even more significant. The immediate health risks are often played out multiple times in a woman's life when she is "reopened," either through cutting or tearing to allow for sex and childbirth. These fresh wounds during sex and childbirth are not only exceedingly painful, but they also significantly increase the risk of contracting or transmitting HIV and other blood-borne diseases. Additionally, women with this condition have a significantly increased risk of obstructed labor and/or the need for a c-section, which is a serious danger to the life of both the mother and the baby in any context, but particularly in one where emergency obstetric care may not be readily accessible.
These women are also prone to infections throughout their lives if urine and menstrual blood cannot exit the body properly.

So why do people do it? FGM/C is extremely deeply ingrained culturally as an crucial for: initiation into womanhood; social acceptance into the community; controlling women's sexual urges to reduce pre-marital sex, promiscuity, and unfaithfulness; a women's ability to get a husband (which, since virginity is highly valued, is closely linked to the previous point); and reaching and maintaining a clean and pure state, both physically and spiritually.

Is it a Muslim thing? Most Gambians think it is, so at the workshop, we spent a significant chunk of time discussing the relationship between FGM/C and Islam. Here were the highlights of the NGO's argument that FGM/C is not, in fact, a muslim "thing": (1) Most people here are not aware of it, but FGM/C in Africa actually pre-dates the arrival of Islam in Africa...historians believe it originated in Egypt and the Nile valley at the time of the Pharaohs; (2) FGM/C is not widely practiced in other deeply Muslim countries, such as Morocco, Saudi Arabia - including the holy city of Mecca!; (3) Most Gambians look to religious scholars in Senegal for spiritual guidance, and the prevalence of FGM/C among adult women is only 28% there, compared with 78% in The Gambia; (4) The prevalence is nearly 100% in Egypt and they have a significant Christian minority, and Jews in Ethiopia practice it as well, so it is not only Muslims who participate in FGM/C; and (5) In recent years numerous Muslim groups and leaders have issued statements and religious decrees or fatwas declaring FGM/C (particularly in its more severe forms) to be contrary to Islam, and some have gone as far as to recommend banning the practice.

For example, Dr.Muhammad Lutfi al-Sabbagh, Professor of Islamic studies at King Saud University in Riyadh stated: “Since all these risks are involved in female circumcision, it cannot be legitimate under Islamic law, particularly since nothing that recommends it is definitely established as said by the Prophet {Peace Be Upon Him}. It is, however, established that he has said: "Do not harm yourself or others". This hadith is one of the basic principles of this True Religion. The conclusion to be reached is that female circumcision is neither required nor is it an obligation nor a sunna. This is the view taken by a great number of scholars in the absence of any hadith that may be authentically attributed to the Prophet {Peace Be Upon Him}.”

If you're interested in learning more about the relationship between FGM/C and Islam, here are a few sites with some more information: http://www.iccservices.org.uk/news_and_events/updates/female_genital_mutilation.htm,
http://www.minaret.org/fgm-pamphlet.htm, and http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_cirm.htm.

6 comments:

Mark Lyndon said...

The mildest forms of FGC do a lot less damage than the usual form of male circumcision. Sometimes there's just an incision with nothing actually removed. One form just removes the clitoral hood (the female foreskin), so it's the exact equivalent of cutting off a boy's foreskin. In some countries, female circumcision is performed by doctors in operating theatres with anesthesia. Conversely, male circumcision is often performed as a tribal practice. 91 males died of circumcision in just one province of South Africa last year.

Are you aware that the USA also used to practise female circumcision? Fortunately, it never caught on the same way as male circumcision, but there are middle-aged white US American women walking round today with no external clitoris because it was removed. Some of them don't even realise what has been done to them. There are frequent references to the practice in medical literature up until at least 1959. Most of them point out the similarity with male circumcision, and suggest that it should be performed for the same reasons. Blue Cross/Blue Shield had a code for clitoridectomy till 1977.

One victim wrote a book about it:
Robinett, Patricia (2006). "The rape of innocence: One woman's story of female genital mutilation in the USA."

Nowadays, it's illegal even to make an incision on a girl's genitals though, even if no tissue is removed. Why don't boys get the same protection?

If you're horrified by the thought of people trying to stop male circumcision, then you have some understanding of why some people don't want to give up cutting girls.

Don't get me wrong. I'm totally against female circumcision, and I probably spend a lot more time and money trying to stop it than most people. If people are serious about stopping female circumcision though, they also have to be against male circumcision. Even if you see a fundamental difference, the people that cut girls don't (and they get furious if you call it "mutilation"). There are intelligent, educated, articulate women who will passionately defend it, and as well as using the exact same reasons that are used to defend male circumcision in the US, they will also point to male circumcision itself (as well as labiaplasty and breast operations), as evidence of western hypocrisy regarding female circumcision. The sooner boys are protected from genital mutilation in the west, the sooner those peoples that practice FGM will interpret western objections as something more than cultural imperialism.

Sarah said...

Thanks for your very informative post Mark. It's interesting that female circumcision used to be performed in the US - I was not aware of that.

While I completely agree that it seems hypocritical on the surface to oppose female genital circumcision (in its mildest forms, that is) without also opposing male circumcision, there is a critical difference regarding the health implications. Male circumcision has proven positive impacts on health, both in terms on personal hygiene and reduced risk of contracting HIV. Female circumcision, however, even in the mildest forms, has no health benefits and still carries a number of the risks I listed above.

Mark Lyndon said...

I posted another comment, which may have gone into a spam folder as there were some links in it.

The supposed health benefits are highly controversial though. Most medical organizations are against male circumcision, even in countries like Canada and Australia, where it used to be very common.

All these medical society quotes can be found at their own websites:

Canadian Paediatric Society
"Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed."
"Circumcision is a 'non-therapeutic' procedure, which means it is not medically necessary."
"After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions."


Royal Australasian College of Physicians
"After extensive review of the literature, the Paediatrics & Child Health Division of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians has concluded that there is no medical reason for routine newborn male circumcision."
(Their bolding. Almost all the men responsible for this statement will be circumcised themselves, as the male circumcision rate in Australia in 1950 was about 90%. "Routine" circumcision is now *banned* in public hospitals in Australia in all states except one.)

British Medical Association
"to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate."

The Royal Dutch Medical Association
"The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organisations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children's rights to autonomy and physical integrity. Contrary to popular belief, circumcision can cause complications - bleeding, infection, urethral stricture and panic attacks are particularly common. KNMG is therefore urging a strong policy of deterrence. KNMG is calling upon doctors to actively and insistently inform parents who are considering the procedure of the absence of medical benefits and the danger of complications."

Mark Lyndon said...

Anyone that is culturally used to a certain type of genital cutting or has been cut themselves, will typically defend it and seek to perpetuate the practice. A man who suffered total amputation this year in the Eastern Cape Province said that he still wanted his sons to be circumcised. He didn't seem to have realised that he wasn't going to be having any children. There have also been several kidnappings of both males and females to enforce genital cutting.

The people who defend FGC also claim health and hygiene benefits, and the Stallings study seems to show that it significantly reduces risk of HIV.

There's actually stronger evidence that female circumcision reduces HIV risk in the real world than for male circumcision. There are six African countries where the men have higher HIV rates if they've been circumcised, and there's also strong evidence that women are more likely to be HIV+ if their partners have been circumcised (let me know if you want references).

Sarah said...

Mark,

Again, thank you for your comment. Your points are well taken, but it's importance to recognize that all the medical organizations you cited are in non-HIV endemic countries. In those countries, I agree that the benefits of male circumcision very well may not outweigh the harm.

However, HIV-endemic countries are a different story. According to the WHO, which in my opinion has significantly more authority regarding health issues in the HIV-endemic countries than any of the organizations you listed, "There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Three randomized controlled trials have shown that male circumcision provided by well trained health professionals in properly equipped settings is safe. WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence." (http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/index.html)

Thanks again for your contributions on this topic. I will not have email access for a while after today, so unfortunately I will not be able to respond to any further comments.

Mark Lyndon said...

The evidence for promoting male circumcision against HIV in Africa is far less convincing that you would think given the money that is being spent.

I already mentioned that there are six African countries where men are *more* likely to be HIV+ if they've been circumcised: Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, and Swaziland. Eg in Malawi, the HIV rate is 13.2% among circumcised men, but only 9.5% among intact men. In Rwanda, the HIV rate is 3.5% among circumcised men, but only 2.1% among intact men. If circumcision really worked against AIDS in the real world, this simply wouldn't happen. We now have people calling circumcision a "vaccine" or "invisible condom", and viewing circumcision as an alternative to condoms. The South African National Communication Survey on HIV/AIDS, 2009 found that 15% of adults across age groups "believe that circumcised men do not need to use condoms".

The one randomized controlled trial into male-to-female transmission showed a 54% higher rate in the group where the men had been circumcised btw.

This 1993 study found that "partner circumcision" was "strongly associated with HIV-1 infection [in women] even when simultaneously controlling for other covariates."

See also http://www.iasociety.org/Default.aspx?pageId=11&abstractId=2197431
"Conclusions: We find a protective effect of circumcision in only one of the eight countries for which there are nationally-representative HIV seroprevalence data. The results are important in considering the development of circumcision-focused interventions within AIDS prevention programs."

http://apha.confex.com/apha/134am/techprogram/paper_136814.htm
Results: … No consistent relationship between male circumcision and HIV risk was observed in most countries.

There could be ten studies showing that cutting off a woman's labia reduced HIV risk, but it would never be promoted and quite rightly.

I was at the AIDS conference in Vienna, and despite all this, Population Services International are trying to raise a billion dollars to circumcise 38 million males. It seems to be a combination of people who've been trying to promote male circumcision in the west for years for a variety of different reasons, and people that want to be seen to be against AIDS, but want anything-but-condoms (the same people that forced PEPFAR to spend a third of their budget on abstinence, and won't allow funding that targets sex workers).

There are a number of organizations fighting AIDS in Africa, but it only seems to be the Americans and Israelis who are pushing circumcision. I don't think their reasons are based on science, and I think they'll make things worse rather than better.

ABC (Abstinence, Being faithful, and especially Condoms) is the way forward. Promoting genital surgery will cost African lives, not save them.