BACKGROUND Although Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C) is internationally considered a harmful practice, it is increasingly being medicalized allegedly to reduce its negative health effects, and is thus suggested as a harm reduction strategy in response to these perceived health risks. In many countries where FGM/C is traditionally practiced, the prevalence rates of medicalization are increasing, and in countries of migration, such as the United Kingdom, the United States of America or Sweden, court cases or the repeated issuing of statements in favor of presumed minimal forms of FGM/C to replace more invasive forms, has raised the debate between the medical harm reduction arguments and the human rights approach. MAIN BODY The purpose of this paper is to discuss the arguments associated with the medicalization of FGM/C, a trend that could undermine the achievement of Sustainable Development Goal 5.3. The paper uses four country case studies, Egypt, Indonesia, Kenya and UK, to discuss the reasons for engaging in medicalized forms of FGM/C, or not, and explores the ongoing public discourse in those countries concerning harm reduction versus human rights, and the contradiction between medical ethics, national criminal justice systems and international conventions. The discussion is structured around four key hotly contested ethical dilemmas. Firstly, that the WHO definition of medicalized FGM/C is too narrow allowing medicalized FGM to be justified by many healthcare professionals as a form of harm reduction which contradicts the medical oath of do no harm. Secondly, that medicalized FGM/C is a human rights abuse with lifelong consequences, no matter who performs it. Thirdly, that health care professionals who perform medicalized FGM/C are sustaining cultural norms that they themselves support and are also gaining financially. Fourthly, the contradiction between protecting traditional cultural rights in legal constitutions versus human rights legislation, which criminalizes FGM/C. CONCLUSION More research needs to be done in order to understand the complexities that are facilitating the medicalization of FGM/C as well as how policy strategies can be strengthened to have a greater de-medicalization impact. Tackling medicalization of FGM/C will accelerate the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goal of ending FGM by 2030.

中文翻译：

---

讨论女性生殖器切割 (FGM/C) 的医疗化：从各国的（政策）经验中学习。

背景尽管女性生殖器切割（FGM/C）在国际上被认为是一种有害的做法，但据称越来越多地被医学化以减少其对健康的负面影响，因此建议作为一种减少伤害的策略来应对这些感知到的健康风险。在许多传统上实行 FGM/C 的国家，医疗化的流行率正在上升，而在移民国家，例如英国、美利坚合众国或瑞典，法庭案件或反复发表有利于假定使用最小形式的 FGM/C 来取代更具侵入性的形式，引发了医学减害论点和人权方法之间的争论。正文 本文的目的是讨论与 FGM/C 医学化相关的论点，这种趋势可能会破坏可持续发展目标 5.3 的实现。该论文使用埃及、印度尼西亚、肯尼亚和英国这四个国家的案例研究来讨论是否进行医疗形式的 FGM/C 的原因，并探讨这些国家正在进行的关于减少危害与人权的公共讨论，以及医学伦理、国家刑事司法制度和国际公约之间的矛盾。讨论围绕四个备受争议的关键伦理困境展开。首先，WHO 对医疗 FGM/C 的定义过于狭窄，以至于许多医疗保健专业人员将医疗 FGM 证明为一种减少伤害的形式，这与不伤害的医疗誓言相矛盾。其次，医学化的 FGM/C 是一种具有终生后果的侵犯人权行为，不管是谁执行的。第三，执行医疗化 FGM/C 的医疗保健专业人员正在维持他们自己支持的文化规范，并且也在经济上获得收益。第四，在法律宪法中保护传统文化权利与将 FGM/C 定为犯罪的人权立法之间的矛盾。结论 需要进行更多研究以了解促进 FGM/C 医疗化的复杂性，以及如何加强政策战略以产生更大的非医疗化影响。解决 FGM/C 的医疗化问题将加速实现到 2030 年结束 FGM 的可持续发展目标。执行医疗 FGM/C 的医疗保健专业人员正在维持他们自己支持的文化规范，并且也在经济上获得收益。第四，在法律宪法中保护传统文化权利与将 FGM/C 定为犯罪的人权立法之间的矛盾。结论 需要进行更多研究以了解促进 FGM/C 医疗化的复杂性，以及如何加强政策战略以产生更大的非医疗化影响。解决 FGM/C 的医疗化问题将加速实现到 2030 年结束 FGM 的可持续发展目标。执行医疗 FGM/C 的医疗保健专业人员正在维持他们自己支持的文化规范，并且也在经济上获得收益。第四，在法律宪法中保护传统文化权利与将 FGM/C 定为犯罪的人权立法之间的矛盾。结论 需要进行更多研究以了解促进 FGM/C 医疗化的复杂性，以及如何加强政策战略以产生更大的非医疗化影响。解决 FGM/C 的医疗化问题将加速实现到 2030 年结束 FGM 的可持续发展目标。结论 需要进行更多研究以了解促进 FGM/C 医疗化的复杂性，以及如何加强政策战略以产生更大的非医疗化影响。解决 FGM/C 的医疗化问题将加速实现到 2030 年结束 FGM 的可持续发展目标。结论 需要进行更多研究以了解促进 FGM/C 医疗化的复杂性，以及如何加强政策战略以产生更大的非医疗化影响。解决 FGM/C 的医疗化问题将加速实现到 2030 年结束 FGM 的可持续发展目标。