|
|
|
Elmo the Clown
New Member
31 Posts |
|
|
podcat
Skeptic Friend
435 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2010 : 21:28:59 [Permalink]
|
| The World Health Organization and the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics have unequivocally opposed FGM as a "medically unnecessary" practice, and it is widely recognized that all types of FGM are a form of gender-based violence. Stemming from this perspective, the AAP's 1998 statement sees the practice as a human rights violation, opposes all forms of FGM, and cautions pediatricians about their role in "perpetuating a social practice with cultural implications for the status of women." In contrast, the new 2010 statement no longer uses the term "female genital mutilation" but refers to the practice as "female genital cutting (FGC) or ritual genital cutting," makes no reference to the discriminatory aspect of FGM, and selectively opposes only those forms of FGM that in its view "pose the risk of physical or psychological harm." |
(emphasis mine) |
“In a modern...society, everybody has the absolute right to believe whatever they damn well please, but they don't have the same right to be taken seriously”.
-Barry Williams, co-founder, Australian Skeptics |
 |
|
|
Elmo the Clown
New Member
31 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2010 : 08:31:12 [Permalink]
|
Damn. Read. Another thing wrong with news and forums. READ. Sigh. Source? They blew it to. Are they lazy or agenda driven?
I reiterate, from:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/102/1/153
Which is actually the AAP page, as oppossed to a prnewswire.com page, or another page with lazy researchers and/or agenda driven.
THE AAP:
1. Opposes all forms of female genital mutilation (FGM).
2. Recommends that its members actively seek to dissuade families from carrying out FGM.
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 decline to perform any medically unnecessary procedure that alters the genitalia of female infants, girls, and adolescents
Read.
Read. Read.
I even put the fricking link.
Edited to add:
Somewhere in there is an interesting letter from a doctor that opposses the opinion that FGM should be done in the US because the health of the patient could be at risk by the parents returning home to a third world and having it done there. Back alley FGM anyone? |
Support a clown, buy a luury cruise from www.ChicLuxuryCruises.com (or any cruise...) |
| Edited by - Elmo the Clown on 05/21/2010 08:36:20 |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
 Posted - 05/21/2010 : 15:35:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Elmo the Clown
Damn. Read. Another thing wrong with news and forums. READ. Sigh. Source? They blew it to. Are they lazy or agenda driven?
I reiterate, from:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/102/1/153
Which is actually the AAP page, as oppossed to a prnewswire.com page, or another page with lazy researchers and/or agenda driven.
THE AAP:
1. Opposes all forms of female genital mutilation (FGM).
2. Recommends that its members actively seek to dissuade families from carrying out FGM.
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 decline to perform any medically unnecessary procedure that alters the genitalia of female infants, girls, and adolescents
Read.
Read. Read.
I even put the fricking link.
Edited to add:
Somewhere in there is an interesting letter from a doctor that opposses the opinion that FGM should be done in the US because the health of the patient could be at risk by the parents returning home to a third world and having it done there. Back alley FGM anyone?
|
Follow your own advice. You are looking at the 1998 policy statement. The 2010 policy statement http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/125/5/1088) replaces the term female genital mutilation for female genital cutting. The statement defends this by stating the FGM is not a neutral term but rather a derogatory one, whereas FGC is an objective term.
It states that the AAP:
1 Opposes all forms of FGC that pose risks of physical or psychological harm.
2 Encourages its members to become informed about FGC and its complications and to be able to recognize physical signs of FGC.
3 Recommends that its members actively seek to dissuade families from carrying out harmful forms of FGC.
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.
The problem in the above is the vague description of physical harm. And in fact, in the statement it is argued that a nick or pinch in the labia is not likely to produce physical or psychological harm and applying this practice may prevent families from opting for more serious mutulations practiced outside the sight of medical authorities.
I actually think this part of the article is not as badly argued as seems from the various articles I read about this. The reasoning applied is that we do allow male circumcision, where the forms of FGM that the AAP talks about are less mutulating. It argues that if parents are given the right to decide on circumcision, they also should have the right to decide on FGM where this is unlikely to cause physical or psychological harm. I actually agree with this reasoning. But then, I am against male circumcision for non-medical purposes as well and think it is just as barbaric. And if you allow one form of barbarism, at least be consistent.
The article points to a serious lack of knowledge in this area. It is argued that while a nick or pinch may prevent parents from seeking out more harmful practices, it may on the other hand prolong the practice of this less harmfull form of FGM. In other words, not allowing the less harmful practice may lead parents to seek out the harmful variant in another country, which would not be in the girl's best interest. On the other hand, banning the practice entirely might end the practice quickly, while allowing a watered-down form might actually make it more acceptable. It is unknown which of the two will occur. For these reasons, the statement does not come down heavily on either side of the issue, but recommends pediatricians to judge this on a case by case basis.
While I oppose the practice (as well as the practice of male genital mutulation aka circumcision), I don't think the policy statement is as insane as the hyperbole makes it out to be. While I think their conclusion comes out on the wrong side, the arguments given for the conclusion are defensible.
I do find the nazi-equivocations that are made especially bizarre. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
| Edited by - tomk80 on 05/21/2010 15:38:36 |
|
|
|
Elmo the Clown
New Member
31 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2010 : 12:42:28 [Permalink]
|
Gah..... got some revisions, missed others.
Gees... and here I was defending them.
Screw them. Any invasive procedure provides a risk of physical harm (infection, non-healing surgical wounds, an "ooops"). The liklihood of terminating a persons ability to have an orgasm provides a risk of psychological harm. |
Support a clown, buy a luury cruise from www.ChicLuxuryCruises.com (or any cruise...) |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2010 : 08:21:06 [Permalink]
|
Life's a learning experience: Believe me, I know.
|
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
American Academy of Pediatrics f**ks up, badly.
