Here's what #AAP said about Type IV #FGM - the type of FGM involved in this case - in 2010: "[T]he ritual nick ... is not physically harmful." http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/125/5/1088.full.pdf …
AAP "retired" that statement after massive public backlash, but w/#FGM ban now gone, who knows? It may come back
1/4 That question is confused & misleading, but so are Jacobs & Arora so I'm not surprised. It wasn't enough for Jacobs & Arora to reject the cardinal principles of #bioethics that govern the practice of medicine in every respect. They also rejected the categorization of #FGM #i2
-
-
2/4 So what WHO & everyone else calls Type IV (piercing as in the recent Detroit case) is "Category 1" for them. Clitoral hood removal is Type I, but "Category 2" for Jacobs & Arora. "Type III" & "Category 3" & "Type IV" & "Category 4" are also different from one another.
#i2 -
3/4 The point, which we mustn't allow Jacobs & Arora to obscure, is that Jacobs & Arora - to use their word - "promote" the piercing at issue in the Detroit case (Type IV/Category 1) & clitoral hood removal (Type I/Category 2). It should go w/out saying that the severe forms...
- 11 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.