Fuambai Sia Nyoko Ahmadu, Dina Bader, Janice Boddy, Mamasa Camara, Natasha Carver, Rosie Duivenbode, Brian D Earp, Birgitta Essén, Ellen Gruenbaum, Saida Hodžić, Sara Johnsdotter, Saffron Karlsen, Sophia Koukoui, Cynthia Kraus, MariaCaterina La Barbera, Lori Leonard, Carlos D Londoño Sulkin, Ruth M Mestre I Mestre, Sarah O'Neill, Christina Pantazis, Maree Pardy, Juliet Rogers, Nan Seuffert, Arianne Shahvisi, Richard A Shweder, Lotta Wendel
{"title":"当前全球反女性生殖器切割运动的危害。","authors":"Fuambai Sia Nyoko Ahmadu, Dina Bader, Janice Boddy, Mamasa Camara, Natasha Carver, Rosie Duivenbode, Brian D Earp, Birgitta Essén, Ellen Gruenbaum, Saida Hodžić, Sara Johnsdotter, Saffron Karlsen, Sophia Koukoui, Cynthia Kraus, MariaCaterina La Barbera, Lori Leonard, Carlos D Londoño Sulkin, Ruth M Mestre I Mestre, Sarah O'Neill, Christina Pantazis, Maree Pardy, Juliet Rogers, Nan Seuffert, Arianne Shahvisi, Richard A Shweder, Lotta Wendel","doi":"10.1136/jme-2025-110961","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Traditional female genital practices, though long-standing in many cultures, have become the focus of an expansive global campaign against 'female genital mutilation' (FGM). In this article, we critically examine the harms produced by the anti-FGM discourse and policies, despite their grounding in human rights and health advocacy. We argue that a ubiquitous 'standard tale' obscures the diversity of practices, meanings and experiences among those affected. This discourse, driven by a heavily racialised and ethnocentric framework, has led to unintended but serious consequences: the erosion of trust in healthcare settings, the silencing of dissenting or nuanced community voices, racial profiling and disproportionate legal surveillance of migrant families. Moreover, we highlight a troubling double standard that legitimises comparable genital surgeries in Western contexts while condemning similar procedures in others. We call for more balanced and evidence-based journalism, policy and public discourse-ones that account for cultural complexity and avoid the reductive and stigmatising force of the term 'mutilation'. A re-evaluation of advocacy strategies is needed to ensure that they do not reproduce the very injustices they aim to challenge.</p>","PeriodicalId":16317,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Ethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Harms of the current global anti-FGM campaign.\",\"authors\":\"Fuambai Sia Nyoko Ahmadu, Dina Bader, Janice Boddy, Mamasa Camara, Natasha Carver, Rosie Duivenbode, Brian D Earp, Birgitta Essén, Ellen Gruenbaum, Saida Hodžić, Sara Johnsdotter, Saffron Karlsen, Sophia Koukoui, Cynthia Kraus, MariaCaterina La Barbera, Lori Leonard, Carlos D Londoño Sulkin, Ruth M Mestre I Mestre, Sarah O'Neill, Christina Pantazis, Maree Pardy, Juliet Rogers, Nan Seuffert, Arianne Shahvisi, Richard A Shweder, Lotta Wendel\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/jme-2025-110961\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Traditional female genital practices, though long-standing in many cultures, have become the focus of an expansive global campaign against 'female genital mutilation' (FGM). In this article, we critically examine the harms produced by the anti-FGM discourse and policies, despite their grounding in human rights and health advocacy. We argue that a ubiquitous 'standard tale' obscures the diversity of practices, meanings and experiences among those affected. This discourse, driven by a heavily racialised and ethnocentric framework, has led to unintended but serious consequences: the erosion of trust in healthcare settings, the silencing of dissenting or nuanced community voices, racial profiling and disproportionate legal surveillance of migrant families. Moreover, we highlight a troubling double standard that legitimises comparable genital surgeries in Western contexts while condemning similar procedures in others. We call for more balanced and evidence-based journalism, policy and public discourse-ones that account for cultural complexity and avoid the reductive and stigmatising force of the term 'mutilation'. A re-evaluation of advocacy strategies is needed to ensure that they do not reproduce the very injustices they aim to challenge.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16317,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Medical Ethics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Medical Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2025-110961\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2025-110961","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Traditional female genital practices, though long-standing in many cultures, have become the focus of an expansive global campaign against 'female genital mutilation' (FGM). In this article, we critically examine the harms produced by the anti-FGM discourse and policies, despite their grounding in human rights and health advocacy. We argue that a ubiquitous 'standard tale' obscures the diversity of practices, meanings and experiences among those affected. This discourse, driven by a heavily racialised and ethnocentric framework, has led to unintended but serious consequences: the erosion of trust in healthcare settings, the silencing of dissenting or nuanced community voices, racial profiling and disproportionate legal surveillance of migrant families. Moreover, we highlight a troubling double standard that legitimises comparable genital surgeries in Western contexts while condemning similar procedures in others. We call for more balanced and evidence-based journalism, policy and public discourse-ones that account for cultural complexity and avoid the reductive and stigmatising force of the term 'mutilation'. A re-evaluation of advocacy strategies is needed to ensure that they do not reproduce the very injustices they aim to challenge.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Medical Ethics is a leading international journal that reflects the whole field of medical ethics. The journal seeks to promote ethical reflection and conduct in scientific research and medical practice. It features articles on various ethical aspects of health care relevant to health care professionals, members of clinical ethics committees, medical ethics professionals, researchers and bioscientists, policy makers and patients.
Subscribers to the Journal of Medical Ethics also receive Medical Humanities journal at no extra cost.
JME is the official journal of the Institute of Medical Ethics.