3

There is a passage which is frequented used to defend Female Circumcision. It is attributed to "female gynaecologist Sitt al-Banaat Khaalid" from an article entitled "Khitaan al-Banaat Ru’yah Sihhiyyah (Female circumcision from a health point of view)".

It contains many religious and opinion-based arguments, but it also states:

[Female Circumcision] reduces the incidence of urinary tract infections

[...]

With regard to the type of female circumcision which involves removal of the prepuce of the clitoris, which is similar to male circumcision, no harmful health effects have been noted.

This quote is from Islamqa.info, but it can be similarly be found on many other sites.

Does any form of female circumcision reduce urinary tract infections?

Community
  • 1
Sakib Arifin
  • 15,705
  • 14
  • 63
  • 137
  • 3
    People, female circumcision is a small subset of FGM. Let's not generalize and build strawmen. – Sklivvz May 08 '17 at 23:56
  • @Sklivvz Note that the quote you added about the removal of the prepuce not causing harm is attributed to a 1979 book by the WHO and stands in no direct relation to the UTI claim in question (it especially is not part of the claim by Khaalid). Note also that it talks about the "type of circumcision", because there are indeed other types (all types of FGM were called circumcision in the past, and are still by some proponents of the practice). I agree that a full answer would ideally contain multiple peer-reviewed studies for each type of circumcision and UTIs, but those do not seem to exist. – tim May 10 '17 at 08:47
  • 2
    I doubt you'd get much meaningful data on this because the kind of nations that practice FGM are also the kind of nations that aren't all that interested on collecting much data on female health – GordonM May 10 '17 at 11:15

1 Answers1

9

UTIs

The WHO has a list of health risks associated with FGM:

Long-term health risks from Types I, II and III (occurring at any time during life)

[...]

Urinary tract infections: If not treated, such infections can ascend to the kidneys, potentially resulting in renal failure, septicaemia and death. An increased risk for repeated urinary tract infections is well documented in both girls and adult women.

There are also various studies that show that Type 3 FGM specifically can result in increased risk of UTIs (1, 2, 3, 4, 5).

Health benefits in general

Various organizations have also stated that no form of FGM has any health benefits - which would include UTIs -:

The WHO states:

The procedure has no health benefits for girls and women.

The NHS states:

There are no health benefits of FGM.

The USCIS states:

The practice has no health benefits and can lead to a range of serious physical and mental health problems.

Community
  • 1
tim
  • 51,356
  • 19
  • 207
  • 177
  • 2
    "no health benefits" is a very strong claim I hope these organisations have a load of evidence to back it up. – Jonathon May 08 '17 at 17:22
  • 5
    @JonathonWisnoski they do. Just read the links of this question, and those are far from a exaustive literature search. – Mindwin Remember Monica May 08 '17 at 18:04
  • What evidence do they have? – Sakib Arifin May 08 '17 at 18:36
  • @JonathonWisnoski - they need proof of the negative? Really? I'd think a dearth of evidence of any actual health benefits would be all they need to make such a statement, not a mountain of evidence to the contrary. – PoloHoleSet May 08 '17 at 20:53
  • 2
    @PoloHoleSet You need proof of any claim you want to make to have that claim be credible. – Jonathon May 08 '17 at 21:52
  • 1
    @JonathonWisnoski - they're not making a claim. They're pointing out the lack of credible claims to the contrary. It's not the same. "Space aliens cure rednecks of cancer via abduction and rectal probing." "No verifiable case of curing rednecks of cancer via that method exists." Which side bears the burden of proof? How does one show and prove that something does not exist? – PoloHoleSet May 08 '17 at 21:54
  • 2
    I am not seeing any studies in any of the links outside of the " Type 3" ones just statements made by some anonymous person in control of the websites. With arguments like: "it's not natural". And again, that is a petty strong and probably unlikely claim. It is obvious that their must exist some possible from of FGM that will cause health problems, for example this type 3 seems to have some evidence stacked against it. But like I said before, it would take a mountain of evidence to show that no alteration whatsoever of the vagina could never produce health benefits. – Jonathon May 08 '17 at 22:06
  • 4
    @PoloHoleSet it's perfectly possible to "prove a negative" once it's well defined (which it is, in this case). – Sklivvz May 08 '17 at 23:50
  • 4
    Tim, FGM is not female circumcision, female circumcision is "type 1" in the WHO classification (the "very rare" removal of the prepuce). See on the IslamQA page: "With regard to the type of female circumcision which involves removal of the prepuce of the clitoris, which is similar to male circumcision, no harmful health effects have been noted." As such your answer is not addressing the claim. – Sklivvz May 08 '17 at 23:58
  • 2
    @Sklivvz Female circumcision is used by proponents for all 4 forms of FGM, and the site is a collection of different claims, so it is not quite clear to me which form of FGM is meant in this case. The site eg also claims that FGM "prevents stimulation of the clitoris", which is not achieved by type 1a (but may be achieved by type 1b, which removes the clitorial glans; but this is in no way comparabel to male circumcision, which does not remove the glans of the penis). Regardless, the WHO also states that type 1 may also lead to UTIs and has no health benefits (there are no studies AFAIK). – tim May 09 '17 at 05:18
  • 2
    @JonathonWisnoski The WHO and the NHS aren't just some website, but an authority on the topic. AFAIK there are no studies regarding UTIs and type 1 or 2 FGM, so it's the best we have (definitely more reliable than the sources from the OP). Putting "it's not natural" in quotes is also highly misleading, as that gives an impression of unscientific arguments by the WHO, while that sentence is not actually in any of the linked pages. – tim May 09 '17 at 05:27
  • 3
    @tim "proponents" is a broad generalization. Clearly, as I've shown, the "proponents" of this claim disagree on other types of mutilation, so I don't see why your answer should focus on them. – Sklivvz May 09 '17 at 07:44
  • @Sklivvz - Okay, so how is that proven? How do you SHOW that "none?" "I did a search and nothing came up." "Your search must have been inadequate." Now, in order to prove "none" wrong, it's fairly easy, but it's the lack of ability to prove that wrong that makes it the accepted case, not tangible proof of the negative. The existence of God is pretty well defined as a concept. Wonder why that's still not resolved after so many centuries. – PoloHoleSet May 09 '17 at 14:08
  • @PoloHoleSet I am not sure I understand what you are asking but the second part of your comment makes me think that first we need to clarify the difference between science and philosophy... let's move to [chat]. – Sklivvz May 09 '17 at 21:47
  • 1
    Can we all agree? Both Female Circumcision and FGM are controversial terms. The WHO uses FGM, but the original claimant doesn't, so this answer needs a linking statement explaining why the WHO's statement is relevant. – Oddthinking May 15 '17 at 12:31
  • 1
    @tim: Do you agree that the OP is talking about Type 1 FGM, and therefore the discussion of the more severe levels in an answer is a strawman? (I would accept some as additional information, but only with sufficient context to separate it from the claim.) – Oddthinking May 15 '17 at 12:33
  • @Oddthinking Yes, I think that it is probably fair to assume that the gynaecologist quoted by the OP is talking about type 1, because the rest of the text (which also contains quotes from other sources than the gynaecologist) talks about type 1. I don't think it is fair to assume that she is talking about type 1a as the selective quote in the OP suggests. The links to the type 3 studies are only included as additional info (the title and body of the question aren't as specific as the quote). – tim May 15 '17 at 13:01
  • @Oddthinking The statement by the WHO is relevant because it talks about FGM in general, which includes FGM type 1 (a and b). The first quote also specifically names type 1 (it seems we all agree that that is likely what the quote is about). FGM is not that controversial and seems to be used in most of the recent academic literature. I think that an answer containing further sources with more information would be great, but that this does answer the question, and seems to be the best we can find right now. – tim May 15 '17 at 13:03
  • @Oddthinking As an aside, I think it is subjective to talk about the severity of the different types. Type 1 can for example be the partial or complete removal of the clitoral glanse, type 3 can for example apposition the labia (but leave the clitoris intact). Both can have a severe impact on a person (with type 1 being non-reversible, and type 3 being somewhat reversible). – tim May 15 '17 at 13:19