Your search found 3 Results
African Journal of Reproductive Health. 2008 Apr; 12(1):7-11.Add to my documents.
Eliminating female genital mutilation: an interagency statement. OHCHR, UNAIDS, UNDP, UNECA, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNHCR, UNICEF, UNIFEM, WHO.
Geneva, Switzerland, World Health Organization [WHO], 2008. 41 p.The term 'female genital mutilation' (also called 'female genital cutting' and 'female genital mutilation/cutting') refers to all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons. Between 100 and 140 million girls and women in the world are estimated to have undergone such procedures, and 3 million girls are estimated to be at risk of undergoing the procedures every year. Female genital mutilation has been reported to occur in all parts of the world, but it is most prevalent in: the western, eastern, and north-eastern regions of Africa, some countries in Asia and the Middle East and among certain immigrant communities in North America and Europe. Female genital mutilation has no known health benefits. On the contrary, it is known to be harmful to girls and women in many ways. First and foremost, it is painful and traumatic. The removal of or damage to healthy, normal genital tissue interferes with the natural functioning of the body and causes several immediate and long-term health consequences. For example, babies born to women who have undergone female genital mutilation suffer a higher rate of neonatal death compared with babies born to women who have not undergone the procedure. (excerpt)
Lancet. 2006 Jun 3; 367(9525):1799-1800.In today's Lancet, the WHO study group report a multicentre prospective study of the obstetric outcome in women who have had genital mutilation. Their study strengthens the evidence base about complications of such mutilation. For a subject with many important confounding factors, we congratulate the researchers for the study design and tenacity in execution. The finding of a causal relation between complications and type of mutilation indicates that the more brutal the type of procedure, the worse the complication. Yet, as has been advocated, there can be no justification for even excision of the prepuce in type I female genital mutilation. Advocating mild forms of cutting can raise the possibility of a dubious refocusing to appease cultural sensitivity sentiments. (excerpt)