Search

Performing female genital mutilation (FGM) is prohibited within the UK by the FGM Act of 2003. A mandatory reporting duty for FGM requires regulated health and social care professionals and teachers in England and Wales to report known cases of FGM in under 18-year-olds to the police. An application to the court for an FGM protection order (FGMPO) can be made to keep individual women and girls safe from FGM. This paper reveals the significant disconnect between the number of FGMPO applications and known recorded cases of FGM. The introduction of FGMPOs requires critical exploration as there is insufficient evidence to show that FGMPOs are effective in protecting women and girls from FGM. It is therefore unclear what impact, if any, FGMPOs are having upon the protection of women and girls at risk of FGM. The barriers to the implementation of FGMPOs and possible solutions are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The history of campaigns against female genital mutilation (FGM) began in the 1920s. From the beginning, it was recognised that FGM was considered an important rite of passage between childhood and adulthood for girls, based on the importance of controlling female sexuality to maintain chastity and family honour, and to make girls marriageable. How to separate the “cut” from these deeply held norms is a question not yet adequately answered, yet I believe the answer is key to stopping the practice. Since the 1994 ICPD, national and international action against FGM has grown and resolutions have been passed in global forums which define FGM as a form of violence and a violation of children’s human rights. These resolutions have contributed to building consensus against FGM and developing national legislation criminalising FGM. Prosecutions or arrests involving FGM have been reported in several African countries and Great Britain, but apart from France, there have been very few. This paper summarises this history and how FGM has been criminalised. It argues that criminalisation may not be the best means of stopping FGM, but can have serious harmful effects itself. It calls for community-led educational information and more support for dialogue within FGM-practising communities, and argues that what is important is addressing the sexual and reproductive health consequences of FGM and gaining the understanding of women who have experienced it and their families as to why they should not make their daughters and grand-daughters go through it too. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Peggy Mulongo and Sue McAndrew respond to a review of the law surrounding protection orders, published in the July issue of the British Journal of Midwifery, and call for a national commissioner [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: While female genital mutilation (FGM) has been illegal in the UK since 1985, research estimated that in 2015 there were over 100 000 women and girls resident in the UK subjected to FGM. Aims: To determine the effect of changes in the legislation of 2015, which made reporting of FGM in girls under 18 mandatory. Methods: Freedom of Information requests were sent to all 45 UK police authorities, asking the number of cases of FGM reported between specific dates, victims' ages, the occupation of the person reporting and the age and gender breakdown of the police force. Similar requests were sent to health and social care organisations. Findings: Of 45 police authorities in the UK, six initially responded, with three stating that no cases of FGM had been reported. The remaining police authorities either provided partial information or declined the request. However, other sources indicated over 6000 reported cases between October 2014 and October 2015. Conclusions: The ability of frontline professionals and policymakers to obtain, interpret and use data is affected by the secrecy that surrounds FGM, the complexities of investigation and the absence of a significant numbers of prosecutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Key content In the UK, female genital mutilation ( FGM) has been outlawed since 1985, yet the practice continues. The multiplicity of reasons given for the practice include tradition, religion and preservation of virginity., The procedure can lead to numerous and deleterious physical, psychological and sexual effects., Legislating against FGM provides an official platform to back up the position of activists and community members that do not wish to continue with the practice., However, the legislative developments, including mandatory recording and reporting of FGM cases, need to go hand in hand with the training of healthcare professionals, improving health and social service provisions, robust political commitment and education and empowerment of FGM-practising communities., Learning objectives To define FGM, to understand the practice, the procedure and its consequences., To examine the legislative development in the UK., To look at how we can improve the services that care for women at risk or who have undergone FGM., Ethical issues Female genital cosmetic surgery., Mandatory reporting of FGM., Gender inequalities., Cultural/racial sensitivity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article looks at the prohibition of female circumcision in Great Britain with focus on its agenda setting, the role of groups and the legislative process. According to the author, it is perhaps stunning that ritual female circumcision should have remained an issue of debate for some three parliamentary sessions. He notes that in March 1983, the House of Lords introduced the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Bill, which appeared relatively mundane and uncontroversial in parliamentary terms. However, when passed, the issue was transformed into one of great personal, moral and political sensitivity. Key features of the policy process in Britain relative female circumcision are keyed out.

Background: Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is all practices involving cutting, alteration or injury to the female genitalia for non-medical reasons. It is a form of violence against women and children, with no benefits and many harms. In 2014, the UK Government committed to working to eliminate FGM. Steps taken towards this aim included creation of educational and safeguarding resources for professionals, and legislative changes including a mandatory reporting duty for professionals in England and Wales (where if a girl under 18 discloses or is found on examination to have FGM then the professional is mandated to report this to the police), and an FGM Enhanced Dataset applicable to NHS organisations in England requiring the submission of personal data about women and girls who have had FGM to NHS Digital. To date, compliance with dataset returns from primary care services have been low. This report describes using patient and public involvement (PPI) to identify research and service priorities to support communities affected by FGM. Methods: We held a series of PPI events (4 focus groups, and a multi-agency seminar) in 2015–2016, following the introduction of these legislative changes, speaking to community members, and professionals involved in their care. We asked participants to consider what they identified as research, knowledge and service priorities to support communities affected by FGM. Results: The impact of these legislative and reporting requirements on the trust needed for community members to seek to consult health services was identified as important for further research. Priorities for service development were holistic services, that met a woman’s needs throughout her lifecourse. Participants emphasised the importance of understanding how to listen, involve and utilise community voices in developing education for professionals, designing services, and developing policy. Conclusions: There was a desire for change to develop from within affected communities; any learning and resources need to be co-created and constructed in such a way that they can be effectively shared between women, communities, and professionals. Questions remain about how to define community consultation, how to recognise when it was adequate, and how to hear beyond community activists to hear a wider range of voices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author emphasizes that the common sense about prosecutions for female genital mutilation (FGM) in Great Britain prevails after doctor Dhanuson Dharmasena was found not guilty of performing FGM on a woman on February 4, 2015.

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Surgeon Acquitted of Carrying Out Female Genital Mutilation in a Prosecution Criticised by Obstetricians," by C. Dyer in the February 5, 2015 issue.

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Surgeon Acquitted of Carrying Out Female Genital Mutilation in a Prosecution Criticised by Obstetricians," by C. Dyer in the February 5, 2015 issue.

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Surgeon Acquitted of Carrying Out Female Genital Mutilation in a Prosecution Criticised by Obstetricians," by C. Dyer in the February 5, 2015 issue.

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "First UK Prosecution for Female Genital Mutilation Raises Concerns Among Doctors," by C. Dyer et al. in the March 28, 2014 issue.