Welcome to another sunny Monday morning, where our question this week is rather unusual. This week, we focus on a story about Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) in the UK, which is illegal and carries a possible sentence of 14 years.
The NSPCC have a dedicated helpline which has uncovered some new cases on FGM that have taken place here in England. But our question to you this morning is not about women.
FGM is defined by the World Health Organisation as “all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.” Sometimes referred to as female circumcision, it is very similar in many ways to male circumcision, carried out not just by religious organisations, but by families everywhere who believe it reduces the risk of life-threatening disease.
But we now know this is not the case. An entry on Wikipedia on male circumcision tells us, “The positions of the world’s major medical organizations range from considering neonatal circumcision as having a modest health benefit that outweighs small risks to viewing it as having no benefit and significant risks.” The entry also goes on to read, “No major medical organization recommends either universal circumcision for all infant males (aside from the recommendations of the World Health Organization for parts of Africa), or banning the procedure.”
Our question to you this morning then, is this: should we ban male circumcision just as we have female genital mutilation?