Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums

[Anuradha Chepur]

Yeah, it's not a joke. US doctors endorse FGM.

[Bob S.]

[Anuradha Chepur]

Thanks, Bob, but I'm still confused. I do hope May is wrong.

The point according to my first link is AAP has diluted its stand of 1999:

1999 RECOMMENDATIONS
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.

Whereas 2010 recommendations:
The American Academy of Pediatrics:

1. Opposes all forms of FGC that pose risks of physical or psychological harm. (implying allows forms that do not pose risk/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. (unlike in #2 1999, which dissuades FGM, this one dissuades only HARMFUL forms of it)
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. (compare this with 1999 #4, doesn't recommend that doctors decline performing FGM, and recommends that they be sensitive to cultural religious motivations, unlike in the 1999 version).

The gist of it, as I get it is, unlike before, where AAP opposed all forms of FGM and asked doctors to decline from performing it, AAP will now be sensitive to cultural and religious requirements and allow some forms of FGM that do not pose serious health/psychological risk. Hence the concern.