sábado, 23 de septiembre de 2017

BioEdge: Is a defence of female genital cutting possible?

BioEdge: Is a defence of female genital cutting possible?
Bioedge
Is a defence of female genital cutting possible?
     
Female genital mutilation (or circumcision, or cutting) is reviled as one of the most egregious violations of human rights. But hundreds of millions of women have undergone some of form of FGC and there is fierce resistance to eliminating the traditional practice. Is it possible to reconcile it with human rights?
Writing in the journal Developing World Bioethics, a German bioethicist teaching in Lithuania, John-Steward Gordon, of Vytauto Didziojo University, believes that a compromise is possible. He contends that “one form of FGC, the removal of the clitoris foreskin, can be made compatible with the high demands of universal human rights”.
This depends, of course, on whether one regards human rights as absolute and their application as inflexible. Gordon insists that cultural background must be taken into account:
After all, human beings are not islands; on the contrary, their lives are deeply embedded in the social settings of their communities. The surrounding society's view of a person – e.g., a woman who has been circumcised and is therefore respected in her society – is of utmost importance for that person's self-conception. To deny this point is to ignore the enormous influence of society on individuals.
In other words, lack of FGC could severely handicap a woman in some cultures, both personally and socially.
The young girls themselves often want to be circumcised because they do not want to be left behind socially. They want to become full members of the tribe, share this experience with their friends, and become respected by other tribe members as a ‘real’ woman, even though the path to get there may be associated with great pain and even life-threatening circumstances.
However, Gordon does not believe that any and all forms of FGC are compatible with human rights. He sets down several criteria:
  • There must be individual informed consent, and not just consent from a girl’s parents
  • Some forms of FGC are such a severe risk to health that they should be actively discouraged through education, social pressure, regulation, and prohibition
  • All FGC should be carried out by medically-trained experts
  • The instruments should be disinfected and anaesthesia should be available
  • There should be no social-political pressure and a female who refuses FGC should not be disadvantaged
Gordon is not arguing that FGC is good. He believes that it should not be practiced at all. But he says that absolutist notions of human rights have to be tempered by respect for cultural traditions. It is a controversial thesis; he can probably expect some fireworks. 
Bioedge
Bioedge

Saturday, September 23, 2017

There is a gap in the Nobel Prizes: there's no award for bioethics. There is the Nobel Peace Prize and the Nobel Prize for Medicine or Physiology. Both of them touch on bioethical issues in some fashion, but only tangentially.

True, some Nobel laureates have provoked bioethical controversies. The 1918 laureate in chemistry, Fritz Haber, was “the father of chemical warfare”. The 1956 laureate in Physics, William Shockley, was interested in eugenics and sterilizing people with IQs under 100. The 2010 laureate in Medicine, Robert Edwards, developed IVF. James Watson, the 1962 laureate in Medicine, was interested in designer babies. António Egas Moniz, the 1949 laureate in Medicine, developed the frontal lobotomy.

However, the time has come. As reported below, the 2018 Dan David Prize, worth US$1 million will be awarded “to an outstanding individual or organization in any field of the humanities or social sciences who have transformed our understanding of the moral and ethical significance of biological and medical innovations in our times.”

It appears that this will be the last time that the Dan David Prize will be awarded for bioethics. So it’s a great opportunity. Send us your nomination, with a brief explanation. If we get enough entries, we will publish them next week.


Michael Cook
Editor
BioEdge
Comment on BioedgeFind Us on FacebookFollow us on Twitter
NEWS THIS WEEK
by Michael Cook | Sep 23, 2017
The American College of Physicians, the second-largest physician group in the US, sends a resounding No.
by Michael Cook | Sep 23, 2017
Apply for the Dan David prize
by Michael Cook | Sep 23, 2017
Now three major medical lobby groups support it
by Michael Cook | Sep 23, 2017
Absolutist notions of human rights must be tempered by respect for cultural traditions, says German ethicist
by Michael Cook | Sep 23, 2017
Five papers have been retracted; one is in doubt
by Michael Cook | Sep 23, 2017
With the birth rate so low, the government is grasping at straws
by Michael Cook | Sep 23, 2017
The main reason for requesting aid in dying, overwhelmingly, is lack of autonomy
by Michael Cook | Sep 23, 2017
Two states introduced bills this week
by Michael Cook | Sep 23, 2017
What happens when a commissioning parent is manifestly incapable of parenting?
BioEdge
Phone: +61 2 8005 8605
Mobile: 0422-691-615

No hay comentarios: