FGM prosecution

www.theguardian.com/society/2015/feb/04/first-female-genital-mutilation-prosecution-dhanuson-dharmasena-fgm

Is this the case you're referring to, Soutra?

It seems quite clear from the report that this was not a case of FGM being carried out by the doctor concerned, and I'm surprised that the case was brought to court.

Meanwhile, it's known that the procedure is being carried out in this country, yet no one has been charged...

IMO this was an inappropriate case to bring as a first prosecution for FGM in the UK.

The young surgeon, early 30s, was presented with the situation of a mother who'd given birth - he then stitched her back up, restoring the FGM status.

As I understand things he didn't initiate FGM on a young girl but somehow, without supervision from a superior, used a particular suturing technique that a colleague reported to the police.

Thanks for the link Aka, it's the first detailed report of events leading to this prosecution that I've seen.

20 plus years ago the policy in police/health and social care in the area in which I worked was one of "working with the community to change attitudes". I didn't feel that was the right approach then and support the current moves to prosecute those directly involved in arranging or carrying out FGM.

It's good to see that a jury took less than half an hour to decide this young surgeon is not guilty of FGM. I do understand the legal point made in the article Ana links above. I feel it's a pity the CPS decided this particular case was the right one to take as its first prosecution for FGM

Who can be sure he didn't know exactly what he was doing when he put that stitch in? He's a doctor.

My reading of the story is that the damage done previously by FGM caused bleeding during delivery which the doctor put a stitch or stitches in to stop. Part of some FGM is to stitch up the outer area of the genitals so that it isn't even possible for the woman to have intercourse. One account I read said this was the case here and she had already had surgery to reverse this. Anyone out there had stitches after having a baby? And that's when no mutilation has taken place. Why don't the authorities follow it up when women who have been mutilated turn up in hospital, rather than hounding a doctor who was trying to improve matters?

(I am not Aka, BTW!)

To be fair to Alison Saunders, DPP, on the radio she explained that the law covering FGM is not only concerned with the initial cutting (the patient in question was cut aged 6, in Somalia) but covers other aspects of mutilation, in this case stitching which re-instated the FGM condition.

The patient needed stitching but as I understand things, it was the way the surgeon re-stitched that got him into trouble.

The reason for bringing the case makes a little more sense now.

It got me thinking - presumably the mother consented to the stitching so she wasn't assaulted, rather like the consent given by women who have 'cosmetic' labiaplasty and re-fashioning when there's nothing medically wrong. Could that be FGM?

Sorry Ana, that was a typo rather than mistaken identity.

This subject is being discussed on the Jeremy Vine show between 12. 12.30. Helena Kennedy explained that some women who have surgery after birth, to return their vagina to a more normal state have the FGM status re-established once they return home. The FGM is usually performed by female elders within their community. HK was sympathetic to the young doctor because of his relatively short experience and total lack of any training about FGM.

It's barbaric isn't it.

The doctor admits he used the wrong procedure. On the grounds of lack of specialised knowledge. Who can say whether the reinstating of the FGM was intended or not? Only his medical superiors I would think.

None of us know the exact technicalities - I understand it was a matter of a centimetre this way or that.

It could be that he thought he might as well do a good clinical job, rather than some female family member getting out the razor blade and twine when the young mother returned home.

What a minefield - I think the court had no option but to give him the benefit of the doubt. Hopefully he will think twice nest time.

It is horrifying to think of this and other women conceiving and giving birth via their mutilated genitalia. Just wicked.

As was mentioned on the Today programme on Radio 4, the surgeon was of Sri Lankan background where there is no tradition of FGM, so I don't think he was complicit in any way, but just did his best in the situation.

On what I've read so far, I agree with Riverwalk's post.

It does sound as if the surgeon was doing the best he could in the circumstances. His main worry was presumably stopping the bleeding and repairing the damage as best he could.