Part of the story is being missed - the surgery was carried out on 51 girls/women altogether, between the ages of 3 and 24 - so some (hopefully most) would have been consenting adults, and the clinical justification was to find an alternative less damaging form of surgery to correct a genuine harmful medical condition which is 'normally' corrected by complete excision of the clitoris.
BUT none of that justifies the actual procedure being carried out on ANY non-consenting child, OR on children/women who did not actually have the condition that the surgery is designed to alleviate.
Ethics boards should be a bit more careful about what they sanction. Heads are going to have to roll over this.
And, having now read the original research paper, I join you in the vomitorium.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-06-18 02:45 pm (UTC)BUT none of that justifies the actual procedure being carried out on ANY non-consenting child, OR on children/women who did not actually have the condition that the surgery is designed to alleviate.
Ethics boards should be a bit more careful about what they sanction. Heads are going to have to roll over this.
And, having now read the original research paper, I join you in the vomitorium.