Female Genital Mutilation

Introduction

The corresponding research would be delving into the assessment of the practice of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). It is alternatively known as infibulation or female circumcision which involves removal of partial or the entire female external genitalia. The crux of the research would be the evaluation of competing ethical perspectives concerning FGM as an essential cultural rite for specific community based females or an act of immoral illegality. The structure of the research would involve the comparative analysis of the ethical perspectives in favour and against FGM and the existing legal explanations of FGM along with the evaluation of the code of ethics of BASW relating to FGM.

Points favouring FGM

Burrage (2016) has observed ethical complications pertaining to FGM have emerged from the variations in standards of ethical perceptions. Such variations are engendered by diverging modalities of culture since no universal standard could be established pertaining to such issues. According to Otoo-Oyortey (2020), such complications could be better contextualised from the perspective of the historian Herodotus who had described the divergent and contrasting practices of the ancient Greeks and Callatian Indians where the Greeks practiced cremation of their dead whereas the Callatians generally devoured the flesh of their deceased fathers. The members of both of their cultures had become petrified when they came to learn about the practices of the other regarding the treatment of their dead (Momoh, 2017).

Points disfavouring FGM

According to Cook (2016), the core of objections in the context of the humanitarian perspectives of women who have suffered from FGM related practices involve the dehumanizing effects of such an experience on the victims and the harmful conditions under which such procedures are performed. According to Mulvey (2017), consecutive Amnesty International reports have outlined blunt tools such as glass fragments, penknives and even broken shards of tin cans or large fingernails are utilised for completion of such procedures. Furthermore, the immorality of the act is highlighted by human as well as female rights activists in the manner of the physiological complications, such as haemorrhaging, abscesses and severe infections, which could emerge in the bodies of the victims of FGM as direct and long term outcomes of genital mutilation (Johnsdotter and Mestre, 2017)

Ethical theory supporting FGM

Abdulcadir et al (2016) have stated that the social and cultural perspectives based study of FGM has involved the influence of contrast of world views involving the practice of any perceptual version of morality within particular ethno-cultural societies. This could be alternatively specified as Cultural Relativism. According to Trivedi (2019), the Deontological considerations in the forms of normative ethical constructs, generally consider FGM as permissible under the pragmatic ethical concept that action could be of greater significance than that of consequences of such actions. This perspective has been effectively related to Cultural Relativism by Hennig and Hütter (2020). According to Karlsen et al (2019), Cultural Relativism does not define FGM as an immoral act since it could be an immoral or unethical act in terms of both legal and social contexts. In terms of Deontological perspective of Ethical Naturalism, an effort to synthesize Kantian categorical imperatives and Principles of permissible harm of Frances Kamm, has been undertaken by Jackson and Smith (2016), for the specific purpose of illustrating the power influence in the existing social structure which FGM. It has been an effort to outline a Deontological constrain which could cohere with pragmatic concerns of violation of right to health of the victims of FGM. The emphasis has been on the Kantian principle of permissibility of harm as an aspect of the greater good (cultural relativism). Thus, Kantian principles outline that values and ethical structures of other societies could consider such practices to be permissible.

The specific point of conflict could arise concerning the determination of the measure of cultural values attached to the particular practice of FGM (Burrage, 2016). Some of the cultures practicing this ritual consider this to be an invaluable rite of passage for women of particular young age groups. Gordon (2018) has further acknowledged that banning FGM on the basis of illegality of it could jeopardise the multicultural fabric of UK societies as discontinuation of such practices would mean loss of cultural value.

The element of identity fostering associated with the practices of FGM has been historically persistent one and this has made FGM as a ubiquitously accepted cultural practice within multiplicity of ethnic groups throughout Africa and Asia (Payne et al. 2019). Mutilation of Genitals or Circumcision is accepted in such communities as the climactic event of initiation into adulthood for both boys and girls so that such personnel could be accepted into the community as adults (Nabaneh and Muula, 2019). Such perceptions are often contextualised as comparable experiences of young people when they have to leave their homes to be trained in the functions of adulthood and, for the girls, this portends the learning of practical skills prior to the accepting of the responsibility of their homes. The supporters and practitioners of FGM are off the opinion that such practices could impart definite and practical merits for the women within a harsh and difficult society (Shahvisi, 2017). FGM practices have also connotations of high social and religious significance as bloodletting symbolising the close knit societal bonds in between the women and their community members (Gill, Cox and Weir, 2018). Furthermore, the identity fostering measure is also reflective in FGM being considered to be an integral ritual to establish the passage of women into adulthood prior to their marriage (Puppo, 2017).

Ethical principle supporting the abolition of FGM

The research of Jungari (2016) has determined that the ethical standpoints utilised for the purpose of describing such practices are primarily controversial in nature since the formal adoption of the terminology ‘Female Genital Mutilation’ by the United Nations (UN) generally indicates the significance and gravity of the negative implications associated with the FGM practices. Peters and Wolper (2018) have outlined that this term highlights harmful implications on the victims of FGM. According to Hammersley (2017), the socio-administrative commitment towards eradication of FGM is fostered upon the principles of Virtuous Ethics. Kant (2019) has stated that the notion of Eudaimonia (beneficial/flourishing state) and Phronesis (practical wisdom) under Virtuous Ethics principles, outline the necessity to consider any practice ethical only if such a practice could characterise an objective beneficial state for the stakeholders of such practices. Catania,

Abdulcadir and Abdulcadir (2018) have specified that FGM is reflective of the inflammatory, stigmatising and traumatic nature of such practices for the women who had been previously exposed to it. von Rège and Campion (2017) have outlined Carol Bellamy, the Executive Director UNICEF, during 2015, had stated that FGM is a direct violation of the fundamental rights of girls and adult women and in the manner, a violation of their physical and psychological progress. This had culminated in the occasion of the determination of February 7th as the Zero Tolerance Day for FGM globally (Gordon, 2018).

Appropriate Legislations

The Female Genital Mutilation Act (2003) particularly prohibits FGM practices and any person reported/found to be at offence under the stipulations of the act would be considered liable to be subjected to the maximised imprisonment duration for 14 years or financial penalty or both. Section 5A(2)(a) and Schedule 2, Part 1 of this act have established FGMPO office at Wales and England which is a family court order meant to protect the girl/women, against the perpetration of FGM offence or against the after effects of incidents of perpetrated FGM.

Furthermore, the Serious Crime Act (2015) (Amended) has extended the clause of extra-territorial jurisdiction for such practices along with the added provisioning of anonymity for all of the victims of such a practice. This act has further established the new clause of offence of dereliction of duty for law enforcers in cases of failure to protect the victims from FGM and has promulgated the FGM Protection Orders under which mandatory reporting by health and social care personnel to the police involving FGM victims of 18 years of age or less has been implemented.

British Association for Social Work (BASW) Code of Ethics

According to Slasberg (2019), the principle guidelines on which the BASW code of ethics has been formulated are as the following:

1: Upholding and promotion of human dignity: Upholding, respecting and defending emotional, physical, psychological and cultural integrity of individuals and communities while working with them.

2: Respecting rights of individuals and communities: This involves preserving and promoting the individual dignity and right of choices and decisions. This process should function irrespective of choices and values at community levels if such factors infringe upon safety and legitimate interests of individuals such as FGM victims (Featherstone, Gupta and Mills, 2018). Professional integrity is the focus of such a practice and this could bring forth a potential dilemma from the diverging interests of unique cultural practices based communities and individuals. This is considered to be a point of inflection.

3:Considering each person as a representative of collective interests: This involves efforts to recognise every aspect in the life of the FGM victims including the identification and development of strengths through which groups and communities could promote their cultural perspectives within disparate cultural environments. Promotion of individual empowerment is incumbent on such work principles.

For further information, please refer to Appendix I

Conclusion

The study has highlighted the extensive arguments encompassing the practice of FGM with varying measures of implications on the victims and the social perceptions related to such practices from an ethical perspective. The summative assessment of the highlighted ethical considerations could bring forth the realisation that it would be reasonable to suggest that, in a similar manner to that of male circumcision, the practices of female genital mutilation could as well imply greater potential of jeopardising the physiological and psychological health conditions of the victims.

Reference List

Abdulcadir, J., Catania, L., Hindin, M.J., Say, L., Petignat, P. and Abdulcadir, O., 2016. Female Genital Mutilation. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 128(5), pp.958-963.

Burrage, H., 2016. Eradicating female genital mutilation: A UK perspective. Routledge.

Catania, L., Abdulcadir, O. and Abdulcadir, J., 2018. Female genital mutilations. In Good practice in pediatric and adolescent gynecology (pp. 183-191). Springer, Cham.

Cook, K., 2016. Female Genital Mutilation in the UK Population: A Serious Crime. The Journal of Criminal Law, 80(2), pp.88-96.

Dixon, S., Shacklock, J. and Leach, J., 2019. Tackling female genital mutilation in the UK: Female genital mutilation: barriers to accessing care. The BMJ, 364.

Gill, A.K., Cox, P. and Weir, R., 2018. Shaping Priority Services for UK Victims of Honour‐Based Violence/Abuse, Forced Marriage, and Female Genital Mutilation. The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 57(4), pp.576-595.

Gordon, J.S., 2018. Reconciling female genital circumcision with universal human rights. Developing world bioethics, 18(3), pp.222-232.

Johnsdotter, S. and Mestre i Mestre, R.M., 2017. " Female genital mutilation" in Europe: Public discourse versus empirical evidence. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice;, 51.

Jungari, S.B., 2016. Female genital mutilation is a violation of reproductive rights of women: implications for health workers. Health & social work, 41(1), pp.25-31.

Karlsen, S., Mogilnicka, M., Carver, N. and Pantazis, C., 2019. Female genital mutilation: Empirical evidence supports concerns about statistics and safeguarding. Bmj, 364, p.l915.

Momoh, C., 2017. Female genital mutilation. In The Social Context of Birth (pp. 125-140). Routledge.

Mulvey, A., 2017. Female Genital Mutilation should be prosecuted as a crime against humanity. Women, Peace and Security.

Nabaneh, S. and Muula, A.S., 2019. Female genital mutilation/cutting in Africa: A complex legal and ethical landscape. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 145(2), pp.253-257.

Otoo-Oyortey, N., 2020. Challenges to ending female genital mutilation in the UK. Nature human behaviour, 4(1), pp.2-3.

Payne, C.K., Abdulcadir, J., Ouedraogo, C., Madzou, S., Kabore, F.A., De, E.J. and Ethics Committee if the International Continence Society, 2019. International continence society white paper regarding female genital mutilation/cutting. Neurourology and urodynamics, 38(2), pp.857-867.

Peters, J.S. and Wolper, A. eds., 2018. Women's rights, human rights: International feminist perspectives. Routledge.

Puppo, V., 2017. Female genital mutilation and cutting: an anatomical review and alternative rites. Clinical Anatomy, 30(1), pp.81-88.

Shahvisi, A., 2017. Why UK doctors should be troubled by female genital mutilation legislation. Clinical Ethics, 12(2), pp.102-108.

Trivedi, G., 2019. Female Genital Mutilation: A Dark Practice of Violating Women’s Human Right. Journal of Human Rights Law and Practice, 2(1), pp.9-18.

von Rège, I. and Campion, D., 2017. Female genital mutilation: implications for clinical practice. British Journal of Nursing, 26(18), pp.S22-S27.

Hennig, M. and Hütter, M., 2020. Revisiting the divide between deontology and utilitarianism in moral dilemma judgment: A multinomial modeling approach. Journal of personality and social psychology, 118(1), p.22.

Jackson, F. and Smith, M., 2016. The implementation problem for deontology. Weighing reasons, pp.279-291.

Hammersley, M., 2017. Communitarian Principles That Will Increase the Damage Done by Ethical Regulation? A Response to ‘The Quest for Generic Ethics Principles in Social Science Research’by David Carpenter☆. Finding common ground: Consensus in research ethics across the social sciences, pp.19-27.

Kant, I., 2019. The metaphysical elements of ethics. Good Press.

Slasberg, C., 2019. Ethical and lawful practice in assessment of need and planning support: the case for action. Critical and Radical Social Work, 7(1), pp.111-117.

Featherstone, B., Gupta, A. and Mills, S., 2018. The role of the social worker in adoption–ethics and human rights: An enquiry. Birmingham: British Association of Social Workers.

Appendix I

According to Dixon Shacklock and Leach (2019), the code of ethics of BASW highlights the necessity for the social workers to ensure that families and individual women at risk of getting subjected to FGM, could understand that they can approach the law enforcement directorate or the social care services for assistance. Furthermore, the BASW services are entitled to impart guidance to women/girls affected by FGM to contact the authorities for effective support. The social workers are also required to dissuade pregnant women, who could be willing to undergo FGM, through the information that the illegality of such a practice would prevent all the medical care institutions from performing FGM procedures as well as the added jeopardy of removal of the children after birth from such women.

Looking for further insights on Exploring the Role of Women in Terrorism? Click here.