When I first read that a friend had joined a group called "End Female Genital Mutation at Cornell", I braced myself for a report of an international student's child being subjected to mutilation according to their culture of origin. What I found was a different story that is currently taxing my vocabulary for appropriate descriptors.
I'm very bothered by this group and what it discusses on many levels. This is the kind of thing I would ordinarily ignore or otherwise not speak about - I really don't know how others, or even I, will respond to this.
But that's precisely why I am writing about it. It's a frontier I hadn't considered, with some pretty substantial stakes. And even though I am pretty damn far from an expert on gender/identity issues, I decided it was important for me to share this, and solicit opinions from my bright friends.
On the one hand, this group may have deliberately used a title that, while technically correct, carries connotations in the Western citizen's eyes that cannot be ignored. While technically correct, I hesitate to make a direct comparison of what child urologists appear to have done in a hospital setting and female genital cutting, typically associated with Middle Eastern and African nations (though, one should note, it is not an exclusively Islamic practice - it is practiced by a fairly wide range of religious and cultural groups). This group's actions may have a chilling effect on the areas of medicine related to child urology akin to abortion medicine. It may directly affect the specific doctors' targeted, leading to their firing, loss of employment, and, should pressure be particularly egregious, even suicides. The group's leader is someone who has openly admitted to not having particular expertise on the matter.
However, as some of the group's members discuss, this is an issue of informed consent, coupled with cultural attitudes toward gender that, at a fundamental level, may be infringing upon natural rights. I am reminded by a fascinating documentary done a few years ago on the deaf community, and the decisions to have, or refrain from, cochlear implants in children. Furthermore, there may be specific charges of arbitrary standards and methodology that group members may find objectionable.
So there are a few important, intriguing, and difficult questions. Some may have been answered by US legal precedent. If known, I would welcome input. But I'm more interested in your thoughts.
(1) What is the limit of the condition of informed consent, applied to the medical treatment of children?
(2) What is the criteria for defining a minority group with protected rights and culture? Is it numeric, is it ipso facto, or is it determined by an external consensus?
(3) What guidelines or policies, if any, should exist to guard against first amendment rights leading to intimidation, real or perceived, of members of a narrow field of research deemed critical or important?
(4) Is sex politics the real third rail of US debate? Is sex simply too taboo in America for there to be a productive debate about its definitions, its memberships, and its role in society, law, and justice?
Again, I encourage you to comment, even if you felt, as I, that this issue made you tremendously uncomfortable.
No comments:
Post a Comment