UK policy response to female genital mutilation needs urgent rethink

Abstract

Sakaria Ali and colleagues argue that UK policy is disproportionately focused on criminal prosecution rather than community based prevention and providing appropriate care to those living with the consequences of female genital mutilation

Examining the key features of specialist health service provision for women with Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C) in the Global North: a scoping review

“…However, recent evidence from the UK has highlighted the potentially adverse effects of policies that focus on safeguarding, rather than emphasizing the role of education, community enabled prevention work and specialist healthcare support ( 111 ). It has been hypothesized that policymakers in the UK (influenced by media rhetoric) failed to appreciate that by far the majority of FGM/C cases in the UK are historic cases; that the real risk to girls may have been overestimated ( 112 , 113 ); and they failed to acknowledge the “ shifted societal norms around FGM/C” (e.g., FGM/C no longer bestowing social advantage within migrant communities) ( 111 ) . Moreover, the threat of a safeguarding intervention may cause some women to feel alienated and stigmatized ( 114 ) resulting in fear and reluctance to attend specialist FGM services ( 115 ).…”

Investigating Factors Associated with Migration and Cultural Adaptation in Relation to Change in Attitudes and Behavior towards Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C) among Populations from FGM/C-Practicing Countries Living in Western Countries: A Scoping Review

“…The total score (out of 20 possible) categorizes papers as low (0-10), moderate (11)(12)(13), or high quality (14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20). For quantitative observational cross-sectional studies, the Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS) checklist was employed, with 20 questions scored similarly, resulting in categorization as low (0-19), moderate (20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30), or high quality (31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36)(37)(38)(39)(40), based on the overall score [16]. Sixteen studies were classified as being of high methodological quality, and the remaining one was deemed to be of moderate quality; none were rated as poor.…”

“…The legislation should not perceived as a mere imposition but also address protection and support [18]. Likewise, the UK study in Bristol highlighted the fact that local educational initiatives in communities with FGM/C have effectively contributed to diminishing the practice and to shifting attitudes [37].…”

The wrong word for the job? The ethics of collecting data on ‘race’ in academic publishing

“…John McMillan , 1 Brian D Earp, 2 Wing May Kong, 3 Mehrunisha Suleman , 4 Shahvisi 5 Socially responsible publishers, such as the BMJ Publishing Group, have demonstrated a commitment to health equity and working towards rectifying the structural racism that exists both in healthcare and in medical publishing. 1 The commitment of academic publishers to collecting information relevant to promoting equity and diversity is important and commendable where it leads to that result.…”

“…Among these are issues around privacy or data misuse, as well as more basic concerns about how, when or why people should be categorised in certain ways and/or prompted to conceive of themselves or their identities in certain terms. 3 If such data are to be collected, therefore, their effectiveness in achieving the stated ends must have a sufficiently compelling evidence base so as to justify the various risks involved. And where possible, these risks must also be identified and minimised.…”