Literature DB >> 11657294

Female genital mutilation and cosmetic surgery: regulating non-therapeutic body modification.

Sally Sheldon, Stephen Wilkinson.   

Abstract

In the UK, female genital mutilation is unlawful, not only when performed on minors, but also when performed on adult women. The aim of our paper is to examine several arguments which have been advanced in support of this ban and to assess whether they are sufficient to justify banning female genital mutilation for competent, consenting women. We proceed by comparing female genital mutilation, which is banned, with cosmetic surgery, towards which the law has taken a very permissive stance. We then examine the main arguments for the prohibition of the former, assessing in each case both (a) whether the argument succeeds in justifying the ban and, if so, (b) whether a parallel argument would not also support a ban on the latter. We focus on the following arguments. Female genital mutilation should be unlawful because: (1) no woman could validly consent to it; (2) it is an oppressive and sexist practice; (3) it involves the intentional infliction of injury; (4) it causes offence. Our view is that arguments (3) and (4) are unsound and that, although arguments (1) and (2) may be sound, they support not only a ban on female genital mutilation, but also one on (some types of) cosmetic surgery. Hence, we conclude that the present legal situation in the UK is ethically unsustainable in one of the following ways. Either the ban on female genital mutilation is unjustified because arguments (1) and (2) are not in fact successful; or the law's permissive attitude towards cosmetic surgery is unjustified because arguments (1) and (2) are in fact successful and apply equally to female genital mutilation and (certain forms of) cosmetic surgery. The people of the countries where female genital mutilation is practised resent references to 'barbaric practices imposed on women by male-dominated primitive societies', especially when they look at the Western world and see women undergoing their own feminization rites intended to increase sexual desirability: medically dangerous forms of cosmetic plastic surgery, for instance....

Entities:  

Keywords:  Analytical Approach; Legal Approach; Professional Patient Relationship

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 11657294     DOI: 10.1111/1467-8519.00117

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bioethics        ISSN: 0269-9702            Impact factor:   1.898


  7 in total

1.  Female genital mutilation: whose problem, whose solution? Mutilation or modification?

Authors:  Lois S Bibbings
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-07-29

2.  Female genital mutilation: the ethical impact of the new Italian law.

Authors:  E Turillazzi; V Fineschi
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 2.903

3.  Safer self-injury or assisted self-harm?

Authors:  Kerry Gutridge
Journal:  Theor Med Bioeth       Date:  2010-02

4.  Prenatal screening, reproductive choice, and public health.

Authors:  Stephen Wilkinson
Journal:  Bioethics       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 1.898

5.  "Eugenics talk" and the language of bioethics.

Authors:  S Wilkinson
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 2.903

Review 6.  The contribution of online content to the promotion and normalisation of female genital cosmetic surgery: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Hayley Mowat; Karalyn McDonald; Amy Shields Dobson; Jane Fisher; Maggie Kirkman
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2015-11-25       Impact factor: 2.809

Review 7.  Medicalized Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: Contentious Practices and Persistent Debates.

Authors:  Samuel Kimani; Bettina Shell-Duncan
Journal:  Curr Sex Health Rep       Date:  2018-02-21
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.