Female Genital Mutilation and Human Rights
By: Lisa Donaldson
Genital mutilation, both male and female, has been present in society since ancient times. Today it is present throughout the world, with some forms being readily accepted into educated western societies. While cases of female genital mutilation spark public outcries, it is interesting to note that male circumcision does not, despite involving hurting innocent minors, having negative repercussions on the child and, in most cases, providing no medical benefits. In fact there are very few cases where genital mutilation is performed for medical reasons, which contradicts the doctors oath, thus making doctors who perform circumcisions and the like, hypocrites. This, and the fact that it directly contradicts parts of the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, is the basis of many people’s protests about the practice.
Mutilation is defined as being “Disfigurement or injury by removal or destruction of any conspicuous or essential part of the body” (Stedman’s Medical Dictionary, 26th Edition, 1995). This definition includes male circumcision, as many practitioners believe the foreskin is an essential part of the male genitalia. Medical science has recently rediscovered that the prepuce is the principal location of erogenous sensation in the human male and that removal of this prepuce substantially reduces the sensitivity of the area (History of Circumcision, page 1). Only in rare occurrences where the foreskin does not naturally retract is circumcision a medically based surgical procedure (Price, 1996).
Some side effects of circumcision include intense pain, death due to haemorrhaging or infection and loss of sexual pleasure. The pain experienced by babies during circumcision has been described as among the most painful procedures performed in neonatal medicine and of a level which would not be tolerated by older patients. There have been more fatalities linked to circumcision than there have been for penile cancer, which it was once believed that circumcision cured (Price, 1996).
In the case of female genital mutilation, there is no evidence to suggest it might be medically beneficial in any way, and can cause serious medical problems and even death due to complications directly resulting from the procedure (Abdallah, 1982; Dareer, 1982).
The possible side effects of female genital mutilation are numerous. They include urine retention, haemorrhaging, infection, pain, menstrual complications, infertility, loss of sexual pleasure or inability to perform sexual intercourse, death and psychological disturbances. In some cases, babies have been seriously harmed during prolonged labour, due to circumcision, resulting in brain damage or death of the child (Abdallah, 1982).
Genital mutilation is usually performed as either a religious ritual or to gain acceptance within the society. While the UN Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has the freedom to practice their religion, many people object when the rituals involved in practicing a religion involve hurting another human being, especially a minor.
Mere assertion that ritual circumcision is seen as a religious duty is equally valueless in discharging the burden of proof: it may provide a reason but it does not provide a justification, or in other words it may explain but does not excuse. Price, 1996, page 4
While everyone has the freedom to practice their religion, in the case of doctors and members of society (ie midwives etc) performing genital mutilation on children, several rights as listed in the UN Declaration of Human Rights are denied. One example is Article 5, which states that “No one shall be subject to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” (United Nations, 1998). These are also rights, which are broken according to the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. In fact, part 2 of Article 2 states that “States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child’s parents, or family members.” Not only that, but it also contradicts another body of international law and standards:
Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Bearing in mind that the practice of genital mutilation breaks at least three international documents listing the rights of every human being, one is forced to ask why medical practitioners still perform male circumcisions. By doing so, they risk labelling themselves as hypocrites for going against one of the fundamental elements of their oath, which they take before becoming doctors. Price quoted it in his research paper on circumcision and renamed it the Hippocratic Oath:
The regimen I adopt shall be for the benefit of my patients according to my ability and judgement, and not for their hurt or for any wrong…. Whatsoever house I enter, there will I go for the benefit of the sick, refraining from all wrongdoing or corruption.
This was labelled as hippocratic as circumcision is not a medically beneficial procedure in most cases.
One also has to wonder why so little action is being taken on this matter throughout the world, and why the practice has remained so widespread. In America 60% of newborn males in 1996 were circumcised and 10% in Australia (History of Circumcision, page 3). Female circumcision rates are well above 70% in some African countries, including Sudan (Dareer, 1982).
While laws may have been passed preventing circumcision and female genital mutilation in some areas, inadequate law enforcement has rendered the legislation irrelevant and useless (Dareer, 1982). Clearly this is an issue which needs to be globally addressed and enforced in order to protect our children.
With the facts stated here, it is my belief that genital mutilation, both male and female, is very much and issue which again needs to be addressed on a global scale, as it was in 1989 with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Every day this issue goes unaddressed more children are violated and scarred for the rest of their lives, and their rights, as set out in the United Nation Declaration of Human Rights and Convention on the Rights of the Children are violated. It is also my belief that circumcision should be a procedure performed for medical reasons only, unless the person undergoing the operation is legally old enough to decide for himself. It then releases doctors from performing a procedure that goes against their ethics, thus freeing them from the stigma of being labelled hypocrites. Genital mutilation is a matter for global consideration as it is a global problem.
Bibliography
Abdallah R. H. D., 1982, Sisters in Affliction, Zed Press, London
Dareer A., 1982, Woman, Why Do You Weep, Zed Press, London
Female Genital Mutilation Network, 1999, The Basics
Forward USA, 1999, Female Genital Mutilation
History of Circumcision
http://www.cirp.org/library/history
Price C., 1996, Male Circumcision: A Legal Affront [Online, accessed 9 Nov 1999]
http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/price-uklc/
Shanahan J., 1997, Australian Circumcision Rates
http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/Australia
UNICEF and the Medicalization of Female Genital Mutilation, 1999
United Nations, 1998, Universal Declaration of Human Rights
~*~