Advertisement

Health Consequences of FGM/C

  • Ngianga-Bakwin Kandala
  • Paul Nzinga Komba
Chapter

Abstract

Based on the evidence of prevalence of FGM/C presented in the preceding chapters, we now proceed to the questions of (1) health consequences and risks posed by the FGM/C condition as well as (2) the medical interventions, which can benefit patients who have been subjected to this condition. In order to deal with these issues, we begin by gathering and analysing the relevant set of knowledge of the FGM/C and its typologies. Such knowledge, we suggest, must be coupled with a sound understanding of the anatomy and physiological aspects and procedures. Such a combination of knowledge may assist those health professionals in countries of FGM/C prevalence (described in the preceding chapters) to become competently involved in the provision of care and support for their patients.

References

  1. Androus. (2004). The United States, FGM, and Global Rights to Bodily Integrity. Paper presented at The Rothermere American Institute Conference. The United States and Global Human Rights, November 2004, Oxford: Oxford University.Google Scholar
  2. Berg, R. C., & Underland, V. (2013). The obstetric consequences of female genital mutilation/cutting: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstetrics and Gynecology International, 2013, 15 p.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/496564.
  3. Creighton, S. M., & Hodes, D. (2014). Female genital mutilation: What every paediatrician should know. BMJ, 101(3), 267–271.Google Scholar
  4. Hosken. (1993). The Hosken report: Genital and sexual mutilation of females (4th ed.p. 91). Lexington, MA: Women’s International Network News.Google Scholar
  5. Kenyatta. (1930). as cited in Shweder (2005).Google Scholar
  6. Knipscheer, J., Vloeberghs, E., van der Kwaak, A., & van den Muijsenbergh, M. (2015). Mental health problems associated with female genital mutilation. BJPsych Bulletin, 39(6), 273–277.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. McLean. (1980). Minority Rights Group Report No. 47 1980: (from 36 Craven Street, London WC2). 1.20.Google Scholar
  8. Poulain, A. C. (2007). Les Mutilations sexuellesfeminines: Pratiquesprofessionnelesdans les maternities de Seine-Saint Denis. Doctoral thesis. Creteil Faculty of Medicine at the University of Paris Val-De-Marne.Google Scholar
  9. Shell-Duncan, B. (2011). Medicalisation of female genital ‘circumcision’: Harm reduction or promotion of a dangerous practice. Social Science & Medicine, 52, 1013–1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Shweder. (2005). When cultures collide: Which rights? Whose tradition of values?: A critique of the global anti-FGM campaign. In C. Eisgruber & A. Sajo (Eds.), Global Justice and the Bulwarks of Localism: Human Rights in Context. Boston, MA: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  11. UNICEF. (2013). Female genital mutilation/cutting: A statistical overview and exploration of the dynamics of change. http://www.unicef.org/media/files/FGCM_Lo_res.pdf
  12. WHO. (2006). Health Risks of Female Genital Mutilation. Available at http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/fgm/health_consequences_fgm/en/
  13. World Health Organization (WHO). (2014). Female genital mutilation. Fact sheet no. 241. Updated Feb 2014. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ngianga-Bakwin Kandala
    • 1
  • Paul Nzinga Komba
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Mathematics Physics and Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and EnvironmentNorthumbria UniversityNewcastle upon TyneUK
  2. 2.Wolfson CollegeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations