As announced in today’s print edition of the New York Times, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has reversed its May 1 policy statement that condoned certain forms of female genital cutting (FGC).
The New York Times article can be found here and the policy statement can be found here. To date, by my count, no fewer than 23 letters have been published by the AAP’s flagship journal, Pediatrics, denouncing its May 1 statement. The letters can be found here. ARC’s published letter can be found here. The AAP’s about-face has occurred as an apparent response to the storm of outrage its position produced, including the 23 published letters to Pediatrics and also, for example, the following letter that ARC sent the day before yesterday to the members of the AAP committee that authored the statement:
American Academy of Pediatrics Committee Members
May 25, 2010
Dear Committee Members:We have reviewed the AAP’s latest policy statement on Ritual Genital Cutting of Female Minors and we are shocked to see such an ethically and medically incoherent document issue from your Committee and from your venerable organization. What truly is paradoxical is for the nation’s leading organization of doctors treating children to weaken its opposition to a practice proven to cause substantial, irreparable, lifelong harm to children.
Moreover, your proposed, seemingly innocent “ritual nick” almost certainly violates the Federal Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act, whose criminal provisions became effective in March 1997. You acknowledge in your statement the contradictory impression that may be conveyed by policies that condone male circumcision (MGC) while attempting to restrict female genital cutting (FGC). The only course that is consistent with the US Constitution (including the Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection), statutory and case law, medical ethics, and human rights is to prohibit all genital cutting that is not medically necessary and that is performed on individuals unable to consent to the procedure, including children. Parental assent is not an adequate substitute for individual consent with regards to male circumcision as it lacks a therapeutic benefit that exceeds the harm from complications and loss of functional tissue.
We trust that lightening your opposition to female genital cutting is not being done to help set up a parallel move toward diluting your 1999 statement on MGC. Flawed as the latter statement was, it did acknowledge the lack of medical benefit to the procedure on males. It is imperative that both statements be maintained or strengthened.
The AAP has no business brokering cultural procedures, even those that may support future revenue streams for some of its members. In this time of reduced resources, more than ever, it is imperative that medical organizations such as the AAP focus on what matters most-promoting the safety of our children, and working to eradicate-not condone or justify-harmful, non-beneficial, unethical practices such as FGC and MGC.
Sincerely,
J. Steven Svoboda
Executive Director
Attorneys for the Rights of the Child
Congratulations to everyone involved in inducing the AAP to reverse its position. However, the battle is not over. We need to highlight the AAP’s hypocrisy in approving its now disavowed statement and the legal and ethical necessity to equally protect the genital integrity of all children, male as well as female.
