BMJ defends FGM

IOMGran- thanks for your 08.45 information and links.

LemonJam

IOMGran- thanks for your 08.45 information and links.

It's no problem, I always try to see behind the headline and go to the source. Which is what we should all be doing these days, there is so much rage baiting. I checked the Trump statement of the Reiners to avoid going off half cocked, I was 50% thinking it was so bad he couldn't have written it, but there it was, on his TruthSocial page.

Think you're getting a bit mixed up IOMGran.

Nowhere have I said the BMJ supports FGM. What a ridiculous statement.

Nannee49, why write this? The BMJ is not supporting FGM.

Which is the actual title of the thread started by Flippingheck.

In the Telegraph dated 14th December.

I wonder if the DM purchase of the Telegraph will lead to some alignment of reporting style? The deal has been presented to UK Culture Secretary for consideration whther to trigger a public interest intervention notice and refer the merger to CMA.

Many concerns have been raised about media plurality due to the combined market share the acquisition would create.

Galaxy

God the condescension is unbelievable. It just makes me laugh these days.

Me too.😄

Does the article say that the BMJ defends FGM?
Does it? Is that what the article is saying?
That's what the OP seems to think it is saying, because the Daily Mail says so.
All this 'piling on' against another Poster trying to explain what the BMJ is saying.
Most of us know what FGM is. No one on this Thread has said they agree with it.

IOMGranDon't know how you've managed to interpret a very straightforward post into the wild statement that I think the BMJ are in favour of FGM

In Ireland a couple were jailed after over-zealous medics suspected FGM. As the parents were of African origin, cultural bias and language issues played a part.
Female Genital Mutilation: Couple wrongly convicted could get compensation | Newstalk share.google/FPzMJc8PW7nFrNjEL
I'm not trying to defend FGM in the slightest, but there have been other types of cases where flawed medical evidence has led to wrongful convictions.

Yes love0C- The Telegraph headline is as follows:

" Journal of Medical Ethics article defends female genital mutilation"

I wouldn’t give credence to anything I read in the Mail. Actually, thinking on, I’d never read it - full stop.

Far from defending FMG, the actual article, IMO, opens up debate. I am in no way defending these practices and the essay doesn't either but it does raise a number of questions about why we don't object to circumcision or labioplasty for non medical reasons whilst criminalising the very wide range of practices that constitute FMG. The authors of the essay also hold a wide range of different views. This is my interpretation of the article and I'm not a medical ethics expert but IMO suggesting that publishing this essay is defending FMG is like saying that publishing a murder mystery novel is defending murder! Surely, academics are entitled to have opinions and to discuss things in a scholarly manner even if some or perhaps many will disagree with their POV.

Perhaps we, and women who have experienced fgm and campaigned on the issue for years are allowed to discuss why we don't like the article in particular the 'creep' of language which is nothing new to feminist campaigners. Perhaps we are allowed to do that without being told we must be rage baited by whichever newspaper others don't like.
I mean I think the bbc is incredibly weak around womens issues and safeguarding in general, however I try to avoid telling people who use the BBC that they can't think for themselves. Although I may start.

Criminal Offence: FGM has been a criminal offence in the UK since 1985. The current legislation, primarily the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 (as amended by the Serious Crime Act 2015), makes it illegal to excise, infibulate, or otherwise mutilate female genitalia for non-medical reasons.
Penalties:
Performing FGM or helping it to take place carries a maximum penalty of 14 years in prison.
Failing to protect a girl under 16 from the risk of FGM (for those with parental responsibility) carries a maximum penalty of 7 years in prison.
Breaching an FGM Protection Order (a civil order to protect a potential victim) carries a maximum penalty of 5 years in prison.
Extra-territoriality: It is a crime to take a British national or permanent UK resident abroad for FGM, even if the procedure is legal in that country. This law extends protection to UK nationals or residents regardless of where in the world the act takes place.
Mandatory Reporting: In England and Wales, regulated professionals (including doctors, nurses, social workers, and teachers) have a legal duty to report

When I have more time I will look up how many people in the Uk have actually been prosecuted for this.

Three.

Maremia I have no clue why you think anyone on here needs things "explaining", nuanced or otherwise.

Or for someone so up themselves as to take on the role of "explainer".

Points of view - that's all we've all got on here and we're all entitled to 'em.

Or we could actually read the original paper, Nannee49
(Link above)

Points of view work better when what has been said is not misinterpreted, don't they?

Rude posters eventually get banished by GN, it seems to me.
If they have too many deletions.

That's what I thought, fancy. It is against the law in tbe UK .
Also, some years ago 'alerts' were put out, at specific times of the year, known as 'the cutting times', when airlines, to specific destinations, were asked to be on the lookout for groups of girls of the vulnerable age, travelling.

FGM has been illegal in the UK since 1985. Health and social workers have clear safeguarding responsibilities. They walk the tight rope of attempting to work with communities where if a girl isn’t subjected to this barbaric practice, she and her parents, siblings may be ostracised.
This academic article adds to the existing debate on reducing with the aim of ending it. Children may be taken ‘on holiday’ where the FGM takes place

Of course the BMJ isn’t approving. It’s easy to jump up and down condemning the practice, more difficult to stop it.

petra

Grandmabatty

I think the article is more nuanced than The Mail, Telegraph and Times would have you think. It doesn't defend it, but discusses the difference between cultures and the lack of trust in medical professionals. It opens with commenting on the health risks as well as human rights failures.

I have read a lot of articles on this issue. It’s not as black and white as the OP suggests.
I support 2 charities who fight this barbaric practice.

Which charities please