New Anti-FGM Campaign’s Menace?

IS MEDICALISATION THE NEW ANTI-FGM CAMPAIGNS MENACE?

- By Caroline Mwangi

In December 2012, the United Nations General Assembly through consensus, adopted their first resolution i.e., resolution A/RES/67/146, to ban FGM worldwide. This resolution reflected the universal agreement that, FGM constitutes a violation of the human rights of girls and women, a position that has been widely supported by stakeholders that campaign against FGM.

Additionally, most literature on FGM bear the stamp of acquiescence that, whether practiced traditionally or at the hand of qualified medical practitioners, there are no health benefits of FGM. Yet, medicalisation of FGM is becoming a major concern in countries where FGM is traditionally practised and in countries of migration such as the United Kingdom, United States and Sweden. (Matanda & Lwanga,2022; Leye et al, 2019). UNICEF (2020) reports that, about 1 in 4 girls i.e., 26% or 52 million survivors who have undergone FGM worldwide, were cut by medical practitioners. The numbers are twice as high among adolescents, with 34% being adolescents between the ages of 15 and 19, compared to adult women between the ages of 45 and 49, who account for 16% of these prevalence rates. In countries where it is traditionally practised, the prevalence rates are increasing at an alarming figure, despite increased legislation against the practice. These include Egypt 38%, Sudan 67%, Kenya 15%, and Nigeria 13%, (UNICEF,2021. The prevalence rates in these countries continue to rise except Nigeria.

So, what is medicalisation of FGM?

This term has been defined by UNFPA (2018) as situations where FGM is practiced by any category of health professionals, whether in public, private, at home or elsewhere. It further includes reinfibulation (i.e., resuturing after delivery or gynaecological procedures of the scarred tissue resulting from infibulation) at any point in time of a woman’s life. Health practitioners who undertake medicalisation as highlighted by WHO (2010), may include trained traditional birth attendants (TBAs), nurses, clinical officers, midwives, gynaecologists, physicians and assistant physicians, plastic surgeons, and other personnel both in the public and private health care sectors. These medical personnel may either be undergoing training or working in the health sector or retired. the health risks associated with FGM, through access to health care services. It is thus perceived as a harm reduction strategy. It also gives way for symbolic types of cutting where, severe forms of FGM are replaced with symbolic cutting. Proponents of this concept argue that increased medicalisation highlights the risks of FGM, which in turn leads to the decrease in the prevalence of FGM. They further contend that medicalisation is an intermediate step towards the long-term goal of ending FGM. Hence, they propose that, reducing FGM to a physical procedure performed at health facilities, reduces its visibility or the likelihood to elicit discussions within the community, which in turn reduces the social influence or control on community members, (Ve Nina et al, 2020). However, this proposition in my view, underestimates the significance attached to FGM as a cultural norm, by practising communities. As Leye et al (2019) correctly puts it, even though medical practitioners might be able to reduce the immediate effects of cutting such as severe pain, bleeding, and infections, it is unlikely that they would prevent the long-term consequences of FGM, particularly the mental effects FGM has on survivors, (Leye et al, 2019). There are various studies that indicate that majority of survivors of FGM/C have reported mental health problems and emotional disorders such as: post traumatic health disorder, severe depression, and anxiety, (Knipscheer et al 2015; Eisold, 2015). Further, since there is no medical justification for FGM or any perceived health benefits of the practice, medical practitioners who perform FGM violate girls’ and women’s rights which include: the right to life, the right to physical integrity, the right to health, the right to non- discrimination, the right to be free from cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment and the right to be free from violence.

Medicalised FGM may seem like an appropriate and a safe response to FGM, particularly, where it is believed that health practitioners would address the health risk associated with FGM. However, the fact remains that the practice involves the damage or removal of normal, healthy tissue and interferes with the natural functioning of girls’ and women’s bodies. More on this article, please follow this link: https:// mojatu.com/2022/11/15/is-medicalisation-the-newanti-fgm-campaigns-menace/