No case to answer in UK’s odd female genital mutilation imbroglio

BioEdge

Michael Cook

An unusual criminal investigation in London of high-profile doctors for female genital mutilation (FGM) has collapsed. FGM is usually carried out in secret amongst communities from the Middle East and Africa. However, this procedure was described in a medical journal and involved leading British physicians.

In 2011 a surgeon, Professor Joe Daniels, and a psychiatrist, Professor David Veale, published an article in The Archives of Sexual Behaviour about a clitoris removal operation on a 33-year-old Western patient. She had already had labia reduction surgery but still thought her genitals were “ugly” and “hated the look of them”. So Veale gave his approval as a psychiatrist and Daniels did the operation.

Upon reading the article, another academic, Professor Susan Bewley, was outraged and urged the Crown Prosecution Service to investigate because it appeared to breach the UK’s law banning FGM. However, surgery of this kind is permitted for medical or psychological reasons and eventually the police declared that there was no case to answer.

Professor Veale told the Evening Standard that he was utterly opposed to FGM.

“FGM and cosmetic surgery are completely different. To me it’s completely clear. FGM is an abhorrent practice conducted on girls against their consent motivated by a desire to control female sexuality, but [cosmetic genital surgery] is provided for adult women with capacity to consent and motivated by a desire to improve their appearance and sexuality. It’s no different to any other cosmetic surgery…

“I don’t like the procedure. But the bottom line for me is freedom of choice. You have a freedom of choice if you have capacity for consent to do what you wish with your own body.”

Professor Bewley was disappointed, fearing that it might be impossible to prosecute over FGM:

“It makes a mockery of the law. It’s extraordinary. Despite the police having spent three years investigating, it’s puzzling that the CPS has decided against pressing charges. Does this mean all female cosmetic genital surgery, maybe even on minors, is exempt? The CPS decision-making looks inconsistent. Inevitably doctors are left confused and patient safety is unclear.”

 

No case to answer in UK's odd female genital mutilation imbroglioThis article is published by Michael Cook and BioEdge under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it or translate it free of charge with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. If you teach at a university we ask that your department make a donation to BioEdge. Commercial media must contact BioEdge for permission and fees.

Is it ethical to refuse a patient surgery for body art?

BioEdge

Michael Cook

The “bioartist” Stelarc has an ear surgically implanted on his forearm. Like him, a number of other people have hacked their own bodies with implants and prostheses. With growing interest in transhumanism, more and more people are likely to request enhancements to turn them into cyborgs.

Many doctors are unwilling to modify bodies for artistic, political or whimsical reasons. Stelarc complains that it took him ten years to find a willing surgeon. Is it ethical for a doctor to refuse? This is the question tackled by Francesca Minerva in the Journal of Medical Ethics. . . . [Full Text]

Surplus of objectors on abortion creates dilemma for Italy

Crux

Claire Granglavè

ROME – Although Italy claims to have one of the most sophisticated abortion laws in the world, what it apparently doesn’t have are doctors willing to perform them.

Law 194, signed in 1978 and approved by popular referendum in 1981 over the Church’s stern opposition, allows for the woman wishing to have an abortion to do so within the first 90 days of pregnancy. It also created public counseling facilities for the purpose of providing women with alternatives to abortion.

One of the main aspects of law 194 is that it permits doctors to be conscientious objectors and therefore refuse to terminate a pregnancy. What makes Italy unique is that an overwhelming majority of doctors fall under this category. On average, seven out of ten doctors are conscientious objectors. . . [Full text]

 

Doctors’ leaders clash with pro-shooting group over health checks on gun licence applicants

The Herald

W.N.M.P. Bowern

Apply for a firearms or shotgun licence and your family doctor will be asked by the police if he or she thinks there might any medical reason or ‘concerns’ to refuse to allow you to possess a gun.

A change in the licensing regime last April meant new information sharing processes between GPs and the police were introduced in an attempt to ensure those licensed to possess firearm and shotgun certificates were medically fit to carry sporting guns.

The British Medical Association expressed concerns at the time. This week it has gone further, advising doctors they can refuse to engage in the process if they have a conscientious objection to firearms and telling them if they do agree to provide information they should charge a fee. . . .[Full text]

 

Embryo Experiments Reveal Earliest Human Development, But Stir Ethical Debate

Shots.  Health News from NPR

Rob Stein

Ali Brivanlou slides open a glass door at the Rockefeller University in New York to show off his latest experiments probing the mysteries of the human embryo.

“As you can see, all my lab is glass — just to make sure there is nothing that happens in some dark rooms that gives people some weird ideas,” says Brivanlou, perhaps only half joking.

Brivanlou knows that some of his research makes some people uncomfortable. That’s one reason he has agreed to give me a look at what’s going on.

His lab and one other discovered how to keep human embryos alive in lab dishes longer than ever before — at least 14 days. That has triggered an international debate about a long-standing convention (one that’s legally binding in some countries, though not in the U.S.) that prohibits studying human embryos that have developed beyond the two-week stage. . . . [Full text]