The politics of female genital surgery in displaced communities

Abstract

AB S T R A C T International efforts to control female genital surgery (also referred to as female genital mutilation) have mainly targeted countries where the practice is culturally sanctioned. Women in these countries belong to a mainstream culture and are supported by their communities through the process of debate and change. In displaced communities, particularly among migrants and refugees living in Western countries, women from these communities are the visible minority, and the focus and implementation of legislation and health policy addressing female genital surgery risks creating or increasing inequities in access to reproductive health. This paper reviews health policy on female genital surgery in Australia. We relate the frequency of genital cosmetic surgery in the wider population to procedures such as re-in bulation following childbirth, requested by African women; this latter procedure is illegal and currently unavailable in most public hospitals. Data are presented to highlight the effects of these and other political and legal inconsistencies on the reproductive health of women from displaced communities.

An analysis of the implementation of laws with regard to female genital mutilation in Europe

“…Although the survey did not come across any reported cases of labia piercing and cosmetic genital surgeries as a form of FGM, concerns were raised about the applicability of the law on cosmetic surgeries, and more specifically about whom the law would apply to: the whole female population or African women only? [18,20] These concerns are consistent with questions raised by other scholars, who claim that specific legislation on FGM perpetuate double standards, with stigmatisation of a minority population and uncertainty for those operating in this field as a consequence [2,16].…”

“…Factors inhibiting the implementation of laws were analysed according to four categories: (1) knowledge about the practice of FGM; (2) knowledge about the legal aspects of FGM; (3) perceptions and attitudes towards the legal intervention and (4) practices and procedures followed in case of a legal intervention.…”

“…2 They also do not take into consideration cosmetic genital surgery, such as vaginal tightening or lifting/ reduction of labia that are performed for non-therapeutic reasons. For example, Swedish law does not mention age or ethnic background in its content, and considers consent irrelevant [18].…”

The Experiences of African Women Giving Birth in Brisbane, Australia

“…The English language skills of refugees, and the ability of health providers to use interpreters, also greatly impact upon the effectiveness of communication. Language commonly is cited as a hindrance for refugees in accessing health care in Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States, as is access to transport (Allotey, Manderson, & Grover, 2001;Carroll et al, 2007;Correa Velez et al, 2005;Davies & Bath, 2001). Germov (2002) also has argued that whilst women from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds do not appear to be generally disadvantaged in their use of obstetric services in Australia, they may not be aware of available services or have ready access to them.…”

Female genital mutilation in the West: traditional circumcision versus genital cosmetic surgery

“…Allotey et al (14) claim that the general acceptance of cosmetic labio plasty for nonmedical reasons, while society rejects the possibility of reinfibulation after delivery, is a sign of institutionalized racism in Australian society. So far, cosmetic surgery has traditionally remained a matter of little concern to the criminal law in Scandinavia.…”