By Julia Lalla-Maharajh - End FGM Now
The AAP have issued the following:
1. AAP Reaffirms Its Opposition to Female Genital Cutting
In airing the controversy on female genital cutting (FGC) in its April 26 policy statement, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) may have left an erroneous impression that a ritual nick is acceptable as a means of avoiding the barbaric and life-threatening FGC procedure. The AAP reaffirms its unalterable opposition to FGC and to female genital ‘nicking.’
Which is welcome.
However, I cannot find any alteration to the substance of its position. It appears to be the same 26 April 2010 statement with this new statement as a preface.
Whilst the clarification is welcome, I’m still worried at the overall language throughout the entire guidance. I’m particularly confused that the AAP say in their new statement that “the AAP reaffirms its unalterable opposition to FGC and to female genital nicking.”
Yet this sentence in the guidance still exists: “It might be more effective if federal and state laws enabled pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a ritual nick as a possible compromise to avoid greater harm.”
How can the AAP be opposed to genital nicking and then say it would be more effective if state law enabled pediatricians to offer a ritual nick?
It still seems beyond belief that they use language still ike this: “This is no more of an alteration than ear piercing.”
They also have not changed their recommendations
You can see the helpful comparator with the 1999 recommendations which were updated, which I’ve reproduced from the very good Intactivism site here: http://www.circumstitions.com/AAP.html
| RECOMMENDATIONS 2010 | 1999 RECOMMENDATIONS | |
| The American Academy of Pediatrics: | The American Academy of Pediatrics: | |
| 1. Opposes all forms of FGC that pose risks of physical or psychologicalharm. | 1. Opposes all forms of female genital mutilation (FGM). | |
| 2. Encourages its members to become informed about FGC and its complications and to be able to recognize physical signs of FGC. | 2. Recommends that its members actively seek to dissuade families from carrying out FGM. | |
| 3 Recommends that its members actively seek to dissuade families from carrying out harmful forms of FGC. | 3. Recommends that its members provide patients and their parents with compassionate education about the physical harms and psychological risks of FGM. | |
| 4. Recommends that its members provide patients and their parents with compassionate education about the physical harms and psychological risks of FGC while remaining sensitive to the cultural and religious reasons that motivate parents to seek this procedure for their daughters. | 4. Recommends that its members decline to perform any medically unnecessary procedure that alters the genitalia of female infants, girls, and adolescents. | |
I’m hoping that I’ve been given an old link to the 26 April 2010 statement, and that in fact, the entire position has been updated….
Watch this space….
