Peer-reviewed article
Medicalized Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: Contentious Practices and Persistent Debates
Samuel Thuo Kimani, Bettina Shell‐Duncan ·
Summary
Written by AI, not yet AICS's view · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001This review examines the practice of medicalized female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C), where health care professionals perform the procedure, and debates about whether reducing severity minimizes health risks. The practice is concentrated in Africa, though health professionals worldwide have faced requests to perform it. The review finds that whether medicalization is helping or hindering the decline of FGM/C remains unclear, and calls for more informed dialogue focused on protecting girls' health and welfare in affected communities.
Key points
- Medicalization of FGM/C is concentrated in Africa, but health professionals in other regions worldwide have also faced requests to perform the procedure
- Key motivations for medicalization include safety concerns about the practice
- Whether medicalization is hindering or helping the decline of FGM/C is unclear
- Health professionals' involvement in advocacy to end FGM/C can address both supply and demand sides but raises ethical concerns about dual loyalty
- Polarizing debates have produced little resolution and need to address competing rights claims
Limitations
This is a literature review that summarizes debates and evidence rather than presenting original empirical data. It does not provide definitive evidence on the actual health outcomes of medicalized versus non-medicalized FGM/C or quantify its impact on practice prevalence.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Female genital cutting/mutilation (FGM/C) performed by health care professionals (medicalization) and reduced severity of cutting have been advanced as strategies for minimizing health risks, sparking acrimonious ongoing debates. This study summarizes key debates and critically assesses supporting evidence. RECENT FINDINGS: While medicalization is concentrated in Africa, health professionals worldwide have faced requests to perform FGM/C. Whether medicalization is hindering the decline of FGM/C is unclear. Factors motivating medicalization include, but are not limited to, safety concerns. Involvement of health professionals in advocacy to end FGM/C can address both the supply and demand side of medicalization, but raises ethical concerns regarding dual loyalty. Ongoing debates need to address competing rights claims. SUMMARY: Polarizing debates have brought little resolution. We call for a focus on common goals of protecting the health and welfare of girls living in communities where FGM/C is upheld and encourage more informed and open dialog.