22,208
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
| id = {{doi | 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61042-2}}
| id = {{doi | 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61042-2}}
| id = {{doi | 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61042-2}}
| id = {{doi | 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61042-2}}
| id = {{doi | 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61042-2}}
| id = {{doi | 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61042-2}}
| id = {{doi | 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61042-2}}
| id = {{doi | 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61042-2}}
no edit summary
| url=http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61042-2/fulltext
| quote=The authors suggested that a “ritual nick,” in which the clitoral skin is pricked or incised, might satisfy these symbolic requirements, and “is no more of an alteration than ear piercing”.
| DOI=10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61042-2
| accessdate=2011-09-27
}}</ref> the reasoning being that female circumcision had symbolic or ceremonial aspects for many parents,<ref>{{REFjournal
| last=MacReady
| url=http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61042-2/fulltext
| quote=...female circumcision had symbolic or ceremonial aspects.
| DOI=10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61042-2
| accessdate=2011-09-27
}}</ref> and offering a "ritual nick" might dissuade parents that were resolute, from sending their daughters to their home countries,<ref>{{REFnews
| last=Luscombe
| url=http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61042-2/fulltext
| quote=...the AAP revised a much more forceful statement published in 1998, which unequivocally condemned FGC in any form.
| DOI=10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61042-2
| accessdate=2011-09-27
}}</ref>
| url=http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61042-2/fulltext
| quote=The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) sparked a backlash...
| DOI=10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61042-2
| accessdate=2011-09-27
}}</ref> which was swift and universally negative. The AAP's recommendation had been perceived by many as a tacit endorsement of the "ritual nick," and an effort to appease parents who threatened to subject their daughters to worse procedures.<ref>{{REFjournal
| last=MacReady
| url=http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61042-2/fulltext
| quote=...was interpreted by many as a tacit endorsement of the ritual nick...
| DOI=10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61042-2
| accessdate=2011-09-27
}}</ref> In short, the AAP was forced to retract its endorsement, and on May 1, Judith Palfrey, President of the AAP, released a statement that read in part, “the AAP does not endorse the practice of offering a ‘clitoral nick’. This minimal pinprick is forbidden under federal law and the AAP does not recommend it to its members”.<ref>{{REFjournal
| last=MacReady
| url=http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61042-2/fulltext
| quote=On May 1, Judith Palfrey, President of the AAP, released a statement...
| DOI=10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61042-2
| accessdate=2011-09-27
}}</ref> Palfrey reiterated this stance in an interview with The Lancet, saying “we want to make it clear to the international community we are opposed to any form of female genital cutting, and that includes the ritual nick.”<ref>{{REFjournal
| last=MacReady
| url=http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61042-2/fulltext
| quote=we want to make it clear to the international community we are opposed to any form of female genital cutting, and that includes the ritual nick.
| DOI=10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61042-2
| accessdate=2011-09-27
}}</ref> The AAP has since withdrawn the committee's report and is re-writing it completely.
<ref>{{REFjournal
| url=http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61042-2/fulltext
| quote=The AAP has since withdrawn the committee's report and has rewritten it completely.
| DOI=10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61042-2
| accessdate=2011-09-27
}}</ref>