Shell-Duncan B
Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Sealtle 98195-3100, USA.
Soc Sci Med. 2001 Apr;52(7):1013-28. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(00)00208-2.
In recent decades the practice of female "circumcision" has come under intense international scrutiny, often conceptualized as a violation of women's basic right to health. Although the adverse health consequences of female "circumcision" form the basis of opposition to the practice, anti-circumcision activists, as well as many international medical associations, largely oppose measures to improve its safety. The debate over medicalization of female "circumcision" has, up until now, been cast as a moral dilemma: to protect women's health at the expense of legitimating a destructive practice? Or to hasten the elimination of a dangerous practice while allowing women to die from preventable conditions? This paper seeks to re-examine this debate by conceptualizing medicalization of female "circumcision" as a harm-reduction strategy. Harm reduction is a new paradigm in the field of public health that aims to minimize the health hazards associated with risky behaviors, such as intravenous drug use and high-risk sexual behavior, by encouraging safer alternatives, including, but not limited to abstinence. Harm reduction considers a wide range of alternatives, and promotes the alternative that is culturally acceptable and bears the least amount of harm. This paper evaluates the applicability of harm reduction principles to medical interventions for female "circumcision," and draws parallels to other harm reduction programs. In this light, arguments for opposing medicalization of female "circumcision", including the assertion that it counteracts efforts to eliminate the practice, are critically evaluated, revealing that there is not sufficient evidence to support staunch opposition to medicalization. Rather, it appears that medicalization, if implemented as a harm-reduction strategy, may be a sound and compassionate approach to improving women's health in settings where abandonment of the practice of "circumcision" is not immediately attainable.
近几十年来,女性“割礼”行为受到了国际社会的密切审视,人们通常将其视为对女性基本健康权的侵犯。尽管女性“割礼”对健康的不良影响构成了反对这种行为的依据,但反对割礼的 activists 以及许多国际医学协会在很大程度上反对采取措施提高其安全性。到目前为止,关于女性“割礼”医学化的争论被视为一种道德困境:是以认可一种有害行为为代价来保护女性健康?还是在允许女性死于可预防疾病的同时,加速消除一种危险行为?本文旨在通过将女性“割礼”医学化概念化为一种减少伤害的策略,重新审视这场争论。减少伤害是公共卫生领域的一种新范式,旨在通过鼓励包括但不限于禁欲在内的更安全替代方案,将与危险行为(如静脉注射吸毒和高风险性行为)相关的健康危害降至最低。减少伤害考虑了广泛的替代方案,并推广在文化上可接受且危害最小的替代方案。本文评估了减少伤害原则在女性“割礼”医学干预中的适用性,并与其他减少伤害项目进行了类比。有鉴于此,对反对女性“割礼”医学化的论点,包括认为它会抵消消除这种行为的努力的说法,进行了批判性评估,结果表明没有足够的证据支持坚决反对医学化。相反,如果将医学化作为一种减少伤害的策略来实施,那么它似乎可能是在无法立即摒弃“割礼”行为的情况下,改善女性健康的一种合理且人道的方法。