eMagazine April 2023

OUR PEOPLE,
OUR MISSION
Global Health
eMagazine
April 2023
Perspectives
Reports from the Field
Highlights
Reflections
Nursing Division
Women’s Health Education
Hispanic/Latinx Community
Ugandan Voices
Innovation and Technology
Our Beautiful Planet
Art to Remind Us of
Who We Can Be
Video of the Month
Announcement
New Publications
Article of the Month
Welcome
Among the Letters
Congratulations
Photo News
Calendar
and part of the labia (Level II) to infibulation (Level III), or any other alteration (Level
IV). Females may undergo FGC at any age ranging from infancy to adulthood.
Often FGC is performed by other female members of the community with crude,
unsterilized instruments, which increases the risk of subsequent infection, such
as HIV /AIDSand hepatitis. Other complications include hemorrhage, chronic
pain, keloids, infertility, obstetric complications, and psychological trauma. In
many cultures FGM is seen as a rite of passage into womanhood. Other rationale
includes preservation of virginity, dissuasion of sexual promiscuity, and is seen as
a symbol of a “good” future wife. Increasingly, FGC is seen as a way for males
to control women via economic and political subordination of women and to
perpetuate women’s inferior status in society. Some communities consider
not undergoing FGC to be harmful to women’s psychological health and their
status in society. Women who do not undergo FGC are often ostracized by their
community and viewed as “lesser than” or “unworthy’.
The United States considers FGC a violation of human rights. In 1995 the United
States issued the Federal Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act and in 2021
former President Trumps signed into law the STOP FGM Act, which criminalized
FGC in minors. People found guilty of either performing the procedure in the
country or sending their children abroad to undergo the procedure face legal
consequences including removal of their child(ren) from the household and
imprisonment. In 2012 it was estimated that over 513,000 women are at risk
for FGC. At this time a screening tool to identify patients at risk does not exist,
although similar tools are used in other countries (i.e. the British Safeguarding
of Risk Assessment tool) It is imperative that should the United States decide
to begin screening for at risk populations that researchers apply a culturally
sensitive approach to creating a screening tool.
The charter of the United Nation promotes and encourages respect for human
rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex
language, or religion. Immigrants/migrants/refugees have a right to traditional,
complementary, or alternative healthcare. Per the principle of autonomy
physicians must respect a patient’s right to self-determination and must honor
cultural differences. However, if the requested act conflicts with the fundamental
moral mandates of “do good” and “do no harm” physicians have the right to
withhold harmful care. In a medical journal article published in 2002 Peter P.
Moschovis argued that physicians have the right to pass moral judgement on his
or her own patients choices, especially when said choices are informed by deeply
held cultural value. I think Moschovis was approaching this from the wrong angle:
it can be very easy to assert Western ideals onto immigrant populations and act
paternalistically. It is not our job to judge- rather we should listen with an open
mind and work with the patient to achieve the best state of health possible.
Part 2 will be posted in May issue
Global Health Family
Resources
Previous Issues of
the eMagazine
16