(MENAFN- The Conversation) Causing grievous bodily harm, including mutilation, has been outlawed in the UK since time immemorial and has been a statutory offence for over 160 years. Despite this, a law banning female genital mutilation () was in the UK in 1985. Since then, only one FGM prosecution has been brought to trial, and both defendants were . There has yet to be a conviction under the FGM Act.
It is curious enough that the statute has hardly ever been used, but there are other reasons why the to have its own law now needs to be reconsidered. The problem of FGM was initially considered to be so extreme and so prevalent that it was thought that extra protection under the law was needed in a belt-and-braces approach, but we believe .
is practised for a variety of cultural reasons and involves the ritual cutting or removal of some or all of the external female genitalia. It has no health benefits, but does have .
cases of FGM are the most severe form, known as type 3. This involves the greatest removal of tissue and sewing up of the vaginal entrance. An opening can be made in the scar tissue for childbirth (called 'reversal'), but tissue cannot be restored. Doctors can attempt to reconstruct the clitoris, if it has been removed, but the procedure is not always possible, or .
Hypocrisy
In children, FGM has parallels with the ritual circumcision of baby boys. Critics think it is inconsistent, if not hypocritical, that one practice is banned while the other is allowed.
In adults, FGM has parallels with cosmetic surgery. Under the FGM Act, it is illegal for a women in the UK to request having her vagina closed again (re-infibulation), following childbirth. It occurs in the few countries that practice type 3 FGM. In the UK, re-infibulation is always considered criminal, maybe protecting women from coercive cultural pressures, but potentially also denying their free choice. On the other hand, the Act specifically exempts those adults who choose to have female cosmetic genital surgery – operations largely performed in the private sector.
For instance, a plastic surgeon who removed a healthy 33-year-old woman's clitoris, at her request, and neither was the psychiatrist who cleared her for the surgery. Given these contradictory positions, opponents of the FGM Act are increasingly wondering whether this is an example of and .
Generally, is intended to prevent or punish an outlawed behaviour. The existence of a law acts symbolically to prevent the outlawed acts. Prosecution is the means to punish them when they occur. The desired end, of having less (or no) FGM, especially of children, is achieved by the absence of FGM, not by the presence of prosecutions.
No longer needed
The demand for prosecutions is a 'tough' approach taken by the authorities, but it is not a primary desired end in itself. It may appear counter-intuitive that we think that the lack of successful prosecutions may be supportive evidence that the law is functioning successfully (if not completely) by encouraging . We do not advocate scrapping the specific FGM law because it is too difficult to enforce, but because it is no longer needed.
Up to now, the law may have worked by drawing attention to the issue and by setting an expectation of acceptable behaviour for new migrants. But there are difficulties and , including concerns that the current law is .
It has proven difficult to prosecute FGM due to its familial and hidden nature, the shortage of experienced and , low numbers of reports, and a first of a doctor. In any event, established law already includes FGM in its remit () and also safeguards children ().
So, rather than concentrating on government pressure to achieve a successful prosecution with unnecessary law, we could instead divert scarce resources to continuing prevention – such as education, provision of specialist health clinics and community support services. Also, there is evidence that the communities who practice FGM are giving it up with , though sadly numbers may still rise due to population growth.
Lastly, the involvement of doctors legitimises surgery. Globally, 'medical reasons' are used to justify and perform male infant circumcision. Likewise, medicalisation is used to justify FGM in some countries (Egypt and Malaysia) where more safely under anaesthetic, but still without any therapeutic benefit. The law should bring consistency into medical practice: either by banning or by .
Doctors in the UK are faced with two : a consenting adult female with normal genitalia can have major genital modification, yet a new mother who had FGM as a child cannot be re-infibulated; girls cannot undergo genital modification as unconsenting , but boys can.
Increasingly, bodies representing the professional interests of medical doctors, such as in , are cited as saying the health risks of infant male circumcision outweigh the benefits.
Eroding trust
Finally, in the efforts to prosecute FGM, and recording of all old and new FGM by doctors has been introduced – which raises and erosion of trust in the medical profession. Doctors do not have to ring the police about other criminal events reported by victims that occurred long ago and elsewhere. This extra reporting may cause a loss in trust, not only of individual patients, but of whole communities.
The UK could introduce consistency with a Child Genital Modification Act which would make any non-medical genital modifications of male and female infants illegal because the medical benefits are negligible, at best, and the risks great. Alternatively, given that we already have criminal law that would cover FGM and inappropriate surgical cuttings by doctors in the , why do we need the FGM Act at all? It is not and should go.
MENAFN0111201701990000ID1096025198
Legal Disclaimer:
MENAFN provides the information “as is” without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the provider above.