Female Genital Mutilation and Ethical Issues - Essay Example

Female Genital Mutilation and Ethical Issues Female Genital Mutilation/Castration is an accepted social felony in many parts of the world which clearly indicates the need of international moral enforcement. The prevailing situations and the statistics reveal the religious, cultural hegemony on many of the communities even in this modern era. I consider FGM as the best example of deliberate female subjugation that has a history of hundreds of years. The alarming statistics of this brutal practice tends one to doubt about the collective moral perception of the world. Although FGM is a multi-faceted practice, in general sense it is the removal of external genital parts of a girl or woman without any medical reason. The logic behind why people follow FGM is uncertain or it varies from community to community. Studies have categorized the practice according to its severity and modus operandi. However, it is the detachment of clitoris and lower lips of pudenda. After the cutting, the vagina might be infibulated leaving only a pinhole for urinating and menstruation. It has been reported that 95 million or more women in 25 countries have undergone this brutal practice. According to the report of BBC, besides African nations, the practice is prevalent in Middle East countries like Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan and Syria. Even in the United States, 10,000 girls are believed to be at the risk from illegal operations within their own communities. The report also states that, young women in Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden and UK also have undergone similar operations (BBC website). The immediate consequence of cutting varies such as severe pain, bleeding, and difficulty in passing urine, infections, death and shock. The long term impacts include chronic pain, infections, cysts and abscess, decreased sexual enjoyment, infertility, post traumatic stress, disorders and stress in child birth etc. (WHO website). Although present day legal discussion in many countries is concerned with the prohibition of FGM, the extermination efforts have been impeded due to the multi-faceted nature of the issue and other socio-religious boundaries. The castration has been considered as a highly valued ritual in the countries where the practice is endemic. Since FGM has been considered as an important religious cultural practice, many are forced to confuse it as an issue of cultural relativism. ‘Cultural relativism is the belief that all cultural practices and moral views can be seen as worthy, even when they are seen as unacceptable by many observers’ (Forsyth, 125). However, when the United Nations designed international moral standards by its Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), many of the practices including FGM became controversial. According to the opinion of Chavkin and Chesler (2005), what sexual and reproductive rights offer is an assessment of the injustice inherent in the rationales behind the practice. The practice becomes ethically wrong because it is performed on young girls without giving adequate information about the practice and its consequences. They have no opportunity to reject it and moreover they are highly influenced by family and social pressure. Further they are under the threat of social ostracism. In addition, FGM is often performed by traditional practitioners in anti-sanitary conditions without any antiseptic, anesthetic equipment. Thus the person is exposed to the high chance of getting infectious diseases in the genital system. It is obviously against human rights because it violates the physical integrity and dignity of women. As mentioned earlier, FGM is indigenous to many parts of the world and its concepts vary from community to community. Some consider it as the transition from childhood to womanhood; whereas others believe it as to ensure the virginity of a girl under marriage. Therefore the infibulated vagina would be reopened only by the husband. Some other primeval sexual principles suggest that cutting is to purify a young girl before she reaches puberty. In my point of view, irrespective of the conceptual disparities, a carefully drafted social setup can be seen behind this barbarian practice which suppresses the social, natural, and sexual rights of women. On the other hand, as Ingram and Parks (2002) states, since the ethically right thing to do varies from context to context virtue ethics and feminist ethics do not make universal claims. Therefore, when there is no universal right and wrong, there is no objective ground for absolutely ruling out certain actions and behaviors. This concept must be the reason why many governments and organizations maintain cultural relativist laissez-faire approach toward FGM. Of course, it is hard to define the ethical parameters in which one should act, because right and wrong is apparently ambiguous. According to the opinion of Prinz (2007), we condemn actions that lead to the suffering of others, because we sympathize with the victims even if they are far away. A person who is outraged by Amazonian Cannibalism may be driven by sympathy. The author argues that the sympathy may be misplaced perhaps the victims feel genuinely honored to be eaten. Is this theory apt to make the practice of genital mutilation justifiable? Majority of African women who have undergone the mutilation believe that their religion requires it. In other words, in order to meet the modesty they think the cutting is essential. That is what they have been taught for centuries. In a sense, they feel they are honored by doing so. However, to admit the reality we should say that this extremely bizarre concept was the result of male chauvinism. If the critique is reliable, narrowing the vagina and removing the foreskin of male genital organ (circumcision) were intended to increase the sexual enjoyment of men; whereas, to women it gave only pain and lack of pleasure during sexual act. The denial of women’s sexual rights was surreptitiously established as a cultural practice. Rights of individuals are more fundamental than the rights of groups. Hence, group rights should not take precedence over individual rights (Kellenger, 152). Hence, removing the parts of genital organs without any medical or logical support is against the individual rights and no ethnic groups can have the cultural rights like FGM. The statistics reveal the alarming condition of subjugated women under the religious, cultural stranglehold. WHO estimates that 91,5 million girls and women above 9 years old in Africa are currently living with the consequence of female genital mutilation. There are an estimated 3 million girls in Africa at risk of undergoing the practice every year. Several organizations including WHO and UNISEF pay their attention to this issue and some countries have already prohibited FGM by legal enforcement. Although no religious scriptures propose the practice, people of many ethnic groups especially in African continent hold this belief as an inevitable religious ritual. Young girls who confront with many physical and mental consequences find it hard to adjust with the odd practice. ‘Cultural and religious reasoning must be respected, reviewed and possibly be reformed on the basis of interpretation inspired by the value of social justice inherent to all cultures and religions’ (Denniston, Hodges and Milos, 2). According to a resolution passed by the International Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) (1994), female genital mutilation is a violation of human rights as a harmful procedure performed on a child who can not give informed consent. Moreover, the ethical principle of non-malfeasance which prohibits doing harm requires that physicians not undertake the procedure (Cook, Dickens, Fathalla, 266-267). From the virtual or natural ethical point of view, removing any healthy part of the reproductive organ is against the human rights. No cultural or religious interpretation will sufficiently serve the immoral act. As it is stated by Denniston, Hodges and Milos (1999), the female clitoris and the male’s foreskin should be guaranteed the same protection as the nose, the hands or any other body part. To sum up, no individual can be left to pain and humiliation for preserving the cultural rights of ethnic groups. The living conditions and cultural background influence people in this aspect also. Influenced by the ideology or by compulsion many people follow the practice of genital mutilation. In fact, they are not motivated by any sorts of physical or emotional advantages. They are pitted against elemental factors and their rights are restricted by social setup and other traditional reasons. Since FGM is exceedingly deep rooted with communities, punitive legislation alone will not be sufficient to eradicate this evil practice. Human rights activists have to heed their genuine concern to ensure political as well as religious participation in this issue. While law fails to prevent the brutality against human rights, one needs to imbibe values from the ethical codes to protect the rights of women. Works Cited Chavkin, Chesler. Where Human Rights Begin: Health, Sexuality, and Women in the New Millenium. Rutgers University Press, 2005. 41-42 Cook R J, Dickens, Fathalla. Reproductive Health and Human Rights: Integrating Medicine, ethics, and law. Illustrated, Oxford University Press, 2003. Denniston, Hodges, Milos. Male and Female Circumcision: Medical, Legal and Ethical Considerations in Pediatric Practice. Illustrated. Springer, 1999. “Female Circumcision/Genital Cutting”. Religion and Ethics-Ethical Issues. BBC. 9 August 2009 http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/femalecircumcision/femalecirc_1.shtml Forsyth. Encyclopedia of International Development. Routledge, 2005. “Female Genital Mutilation and Other Harmful Practices”World Health Organization.9August 2009 http://apps.who.int/reproductive-health/fgm/impact.htm Ingram, Parks. The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Ethics. Alpha Books, 2002. 168 Kellenberger. Moral Relativism, Moral Diversity and Human Relationships. Penn State Press, 2003. Prinz. The Emotional Construction of Morals. Oxford University Press, 2007. 122 Read More