The medicalization of female “circumcision”: harm reduction or promotion of a dangerous practice?
Abstract
In recent decades the practice of female "circumcision" has come under intense international scrutiny, often conceptualized as a violation of women's basic right to health. Although the adverse health consequences of female "circumcision" form the basis of opposition to the practice, anti-circumcision activists, as well as many international medical associations, largely oppose measures to improve its safety. The debate over medicalization of female "circumcision" has, up until now, been cast as a moral dilemma: to protect women's health at the expense of legitimating a destructive practice? Or to hasten the elimination of a dangerous practice while allowing women to die from preventable conditions? This paper seeks to re-examine this debate by conceptualizing medicalization of female "circumcision" as a harm-reduction strategy. Harm reduction is a new paradigm in the field of public health that aims to minimize the health hazards associated with risky behaviors, such as intravenous drug use and high-risk sexual behavior, by encouraging safer alternatives, including, but not limited to abstinence. Harm reduction considers a wide range of alternatives, and promotes the alternative that is culturally acceptable and bears the least amount of harm. This paper evaluates the applicability of harm reduction principles to medical interventions for female "circumcision," and draws parallels to other harm reduction programs. In this light, arguments for opposing medicalization of female "circumcision", including the assertion that it counteracts efforts to eliminate the practice, are critically evaluated, revealing that there is not sufficient evidence to support staunch opposition to medicalization. Rather, it appears that medicalization, if implemented as a harm-reduction strategy, may be a sound and compassionate approach to improving women's health in settings where abandonment of the practice of "circumcision" is not immediately attainable.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The level of harm or benefit caused by genital cutting is a function of several factors that do not reliably track biological sex categories.
“In terms of physical implications, for instance, the level of harm or benefit caused by genital cutting is a function of several factors that do not reliably track biological sex categories.”
From Reconsidering the role of patriarchy in upholding female genital modifications: analysis of contemporary and pre-industrial societies (2023) · cites this paper as [24]
Cites
Harm reduction: come as you are.
Marlatt, G. A. (1996) · Addictive Behaviors · doi:10.1016/0306-4603(96)00042-1 · Cited by 620 · see citing works
The Seattle Compromise: Multicultural Sensitivity and Americanization
Coleman, D. L. (1998) · Duke Law Journal · doi:10.2307/1372912 · Cited by 124 · see citing works
Gruenbaum, E. (1982) · Medical Anthropology Newsletter · doi:10.1525/maq.1982.13.2.02a00020 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
From Health to Human Rights: Female Genital Cutting and the Politics of Intervention
SHELL‐DUNCAN, B. (2008) · American Anthropologist · doi:10.1111/j.1548-1433.2008.00028.x · Cited by 124 · see citing works
Self-citationSilverman, E. K. (2004) · Annual Review of Anthropology · doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.33.070203.143706 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
Swedish Health Care Providers’ Experience and Knowledge of Female Genital Cutting
Tamaddon, L., Johnsdotter, S., Liljestrand, J., & Essén, B. (2006) · Health Care for Women International · doi:10.1080/07399330600817741 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
Medicalized Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: Contentious Practices and Persistent Debates
Kimani, S., & Shell-Duncan, B. (2018) · Current Sexual Health Reports · doi:10.1007/s11930-018-0140-y · Cited by 65 · see citing works
Self-citationVissandjée, B., Denetto, S., Migliardi, P., & Proctor, J. (2014) · BMC International Health and Human Rights · doi:10.1186/1472-698x-14-13 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
Medicalization of female genital cutting among the Abagusii in Nyanza Province, Kenya
Njue, C., & Askew, I. (2004) · doi:10.31899/rh2.1003 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Female genital mutilation and male circumcision: toward an autonomy-based ethical framework
Earp, B. (2015) · Medicolegal and Bioethics · doi:10.2147/mb.s63709 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
Gele, A. A., Bø, B. P., & Sundby, J. (2013) · Obstetrics and Gynecology International · doi:10.1155/2013/312734 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
“Taming Tradition”: Medicalized Female Genital Practices in Western Kenya
Christoffersen‐Deb, A. (2005) · Medical Anthropology Quarterly · doi:10.1525/maq.2005.19.4.402 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Gruenbaum, E., Earp, B. D., & Shweder, R. A. (2023) · International Journal of Impotence Research · doi:10.1038/s41443-022-00581-5 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Zero Tolerance for Genital Mutilation: a Review of Moral Justifications
Earp, B. D. (2020) · Current Sexual Health Reports · doi:10.1007/s11930-020-00286-0 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Balde, M. D., O’Neill, S., Sall, A. O., Balde, M. B., Soumah, A. M., Diallo, B., & Pallitto, C. C. (2021) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0249998 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Lunde, I. B., Hauge, M.-I., Johansen, R. E. B., & Sagbakken, M. (2020) · Ethnicities · doi:10.1177/1468796819896089 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
- Authors
- Shell-Duncan, B.
- Venue
- Social Science & Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2001-04
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1013-1028
- ISSN
- 0277-9536 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1996155655
- Cited by
- 233
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 5.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Social Science & Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting Issues
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Genital Health and Disease
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
- Keywords
- female genital mutilation, medicalization, harm reduction, women's health, right to health, safer alternatives, public health ethics
- MeSH terms
- Culture, Ethics, Medical, Female, Humans, Hygiene, Physician's Role, Sociology, Medical, Women's Rights, Women's Health, Safety Management, Circumcision, Female
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review