Cited by 233Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting IssuesGenital Health and DiseaseEthics and bioethics in healthcare

The medicalization of female “circumcision”: harm reduction or promotion of a dangerous practice?

Shell-Duncan, Bettina·2001·Social Science & Medicine

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

Crossref · 10.1016/s0277-9536(00)00208-2

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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