HB22 Bill outlawing "Female Genital Mutilation Practice in Nigeria"
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not support HB22 Bill outlawing "Female Genital Mutilation Prac-
tice in Nigeria"
By
Nowamagbe Omoigui, MD
mailto:Nowa@prodigy.net
I want to state unequivocally that I do not support the proposed HB22
Bill sponsored by Janet Adeyemi and aimed at outlawing "FEMALE GENI-
TAL MUTILATION PRACTICE IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA"
There is a huge difference between circumcision and mutilation. To
group all forms of age old religious circumcision into one large
category under the guise of medical enlightenment and "civilization"
is very unfortunate.
The term "female genital mutilation" is mischievous and hypocritical.
Why are we not campaigning to ban "Male Genital Mutilation"? After
all, there is a movement of sophisticated gentile physicians led by
Dr. George C. Denniston in the US who want male circumcision banned
too [Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)]. Let us see who will
sponsor that bill in Nigeria - to ban male circumcision - the main
indication for which is cultural preference.
The classification system of Types I, II, III, and IV being used for
"female genital mutilation" is the same as was used in the US con-
gress when Pat Schroeder was sponsoring that country's bill. It is
not true that every type of genital ritual has the same implication
or is practiced consistently across Nigeria or Africa. I am not aware
of any Edo woman - for example - who has been properly circumcised
whose clitoris or labia was amputated. What is removed is the prepuce
- a small piece of the sheath that extends from the clitoris. That
sheath has no sexual function. It is the same sheath that is removed
in males. In fact in many cases the "removal" is symbolic - and is
part of a traditional marriage ceremony.
Our constitution recognizes religious secularity as a principle of
state policy - but accepts common law, Islamic law and customary law
as a reality. It must be tolerant and also respect cultural secular-
ity in a multicultural nation. There are ethnic clans in Nigeria -
like Ijebus and Itsekiris - that do not routinely circumcise their
women. I respect their right to exercise that prerogative and expect
them to respect my customs too.
Furthermore, there is absolutely no evidence that maternal and child
mortality in Nigeria is increased because of properly performed cir-
cumcision. I challenge anyone to come out with RANDOMIZED data that
even remotely proves such a cause and effect relationship. This is
only the latest of a series of frivolous rationalizations that have
been offered.
First the Women's liberation movement in the West said it was a male
custom done to "control" women. Then they discovered that female cir-
cumcision was done for women by women to women. Next they said it
limited sexual enjoyment - a fundamental right. But it is evident
that most women who do not enjoy sex are not even circumcised. There
are numerous reasons why a woman may not enjoy sex - including the
competence of her male partner. Many post menopausal women suffer
such problems. Pessaries widely used for reasons other than circumci-
sion cause plenty of genital damage to women in Nigeria and Africa
(including gynaetresia) - but I haven't seen any legislation to ban
use of pessaries. Now maternal and child mortality is being blamed on
circumcision. It is just another case of intellectual fraud.
Is this not the same Nigeria where the government sanctions cutting
of hands (i.e. mutilation of the limbs) based on religious codes of
law in certain states? As "civilized" as the US is, one of their
closest foreign allies is Saudi Arabia - a country where cutting of
limbs and heads is standard operating procedure. Why are US organiza-
tions not leading the charge against the inimical health effects of
amputation? Is oil greater than human rights?
Who advised the World Health Organization to coin the phrase "mutila-
tion"? Whoever did was cynically manipulating language. We "mutilate"
the umbilical cord by cutting it off at birth and arbitrarily decid-
ing how long the navel should be. We "mutilate" our bodies with ear
rings, tongue rings, tattoos, nose jobs etc... We "keep" biologically
excretory products like nails and hair - and use them for beautifica-
tion - and do so differently, I might add, depending on the cultural
environment. Some western women (in the US) begin to shave their leg
hair at age 10. Has anyone else in the world attacked them for muti-
lating what God put there for a reason? We use traditional marks for
medicinal and symbolic purposes.... Why is that not 'mutilation' of
the skin? Why not ban it?
Jehovah's witnesses all over the world do not accept blood transfu-
sions and organ transplants in spite of "health data" which suggest
that those medical interventions could be life saving. Should we ban
Jehovah's witnesses in Nigeria?
In response to malnutrition in India is the World Health Organization
going to propose that Hinduism - observed by almost a quarter of the
worlds population - be banned since its adherents do not eat cow meat
which they consider sacred? Try getting that bill passed in the In-
dian parliament - and give me a call if you succeed.
Acupuncture was once derided in the West - because the "biologic ba-
sis" was not explainable using western models of physiology. But once
they realized that China was not going to change its ways anytime
soon - and a few westerners actually went there and came to appreci-
ate its efficacy, acupuncture centers began springing up in every
corner of the West. Talking more about the politics of nomenclature,
I want us to imagine for one second what it would be like to change
the way we describe and use the phrase "abortion" - which is per-
formed left, right and center in Nigeria [in spite of laws against
it]. Rather than "abortion" or "termination of pregnancy" - as my
colleagues like to say - let us call it "fetal mutilation" (FM). Many
of the so called advocates against circumcision who cry out against
the loss of a small piece of tissue - and call it mutilation - have
no qualms with the "right" to have abortions involving the barbaric
crushing and scooping of body parts of an unborn fetus. Neither do I
hear a world wide campaign against episiotomy - the slashing (or
shall I say mutilation) of a woman's perineum to widen the passage
for child birth - sometimes necessary, but more often not. The scar
is permanent and the functional characteristics of the vault as a
sexual organ may be altered forever.
Since we were children how many doctors and women have we seen (or
heard) charged to court for abortion in Nigeria - as unhealthy as it
can turn out to be and as dangerous as it could be whether in the
hands of quacks or specialists? And many women have become infertile
or even died from sepsis. But it rides on in broad daylight while we
are worrying about circumcision. How many Nigerian Gynaecologists -
including those who propound safe motherhood in public - can look you
straight in the eye and say they have not been making money from D &
Cs including partial birth abortions (i.e. fetal mutilation)?
The cultural war against female circumcision is led by the same west-
ern human rights crowd that classifies same-sex marriages as okay (in
some parts of the US) and puts pictures (of same sex couples) in
books for little children to read and learn from. I have the right to
invoke my ancient customs and look askance at such a policy - and
protect my kids from it - at the risk of being called conservative.
Even the Pope in his wisdom, saw fit to apologize to traditional Af-
rican religions recently for the value judgments that led to the de-
struction of their systems.
If inimical health outcomes of female circumcision are the concern of
those who oppose it, let them tell us how to make it safer - just as
male circumcision these days is often accomplished using a special
device. The number of neonates with neonatal tetanus from unhygienic
cutting of cords in Nigeria has generally been addressed by measures
to prevent tetanus - not to ban cord cutting. This point highlights
one of the biases in female circumcision discussions - the fact that
female circumcision was never taught to 'modern' Nigerian doctors and
not offered in hospital when a child is born. Therefore, the alleged
relative safety and low risk of complications that attends male cir-
cumcision performed by trained physicians (not to mention the new
technology for doing it) creates an unfair yardstick for comparison.
And many of the best original experts in the villages are dying. Only
recently I accidentally discovered the analgesic effects of snail
juice - used during circumcisions - from an old villager.
What the Health ministries in Nigeria should be doing in respectful
consultation with traditional leaders - is restricting themselves to
improving the safe performance of circumcision, or conducting random-
ized controlled studies to evaluate various traditional approaches to
the matter, not dabbling into making jaundiced value judgments
(through an arbitrary western prism) about an ancient blood ritual.
That decision is for villages and clans to make, not the country as a
whole.
Our children do not speak our language, do not wear our clothes, do
not practice our religion, and our ancient customs are under assault.
In 50 - 100 years we will be unrecognizable as a distinct cultural
entity - all under the guise of globalization. Is this beneficial? To
who? This rush to western judgment will have to be slowed down at
some point.
In conclusion, criminalizing our customs is a dangerous and unwise
undertaking. The National Assembly should stay out of legislating Af-
rican traditional religion. I do not support HB22.
--
Nowa Omoigui is a medical doctor in South Carolina, USA
mailto:Nowa@prodigy.net
--
Send mail for the `AFRO-NETS' conference to `afro-nets@usa.healthnet.org'.
Mail administrative requests to `majordomo@usa.healthnet.org'.
For additional assistance, send mail to: `owner-afro-nets@usa.healthnet.org'.