Faculty of Law, Faculty of Medicine and Joint Centre for Bioethics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada M5S 2C5.
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2010 May;109(2):97-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2010.01.004. Epub 2010 Feb 23.
Policy on reinfibulation exposes the interface between individual or micro-ethics and population-wide or macro-ethics. If, following childbirth, an infibulated woman requests reinfibulation, a gynecologist may respectfully advise her of its negative implications, but would not act in breach of ethical or usually legal requirements in undertaking the procedure. However, as a matter of health policy and professional responsibility, physicians should refuse to initiate infibulation, and advise their patients and communities that the procedure is harmful, not required by religious or other ordinance, and frequently if not always unlawful. Reinfibulation is not genital cutting (or "mutilation") in itself, but when undertaken by a physician may appear to condone infibulation. This is contrary to medical professional ethics, which condemn medicalization of infibulation and generally of reinfibulation, even as a harm-reduction strategy to spare women the risks of injury and infection from unskilled interventions.
重新缝合（ reinfibulation ）政策揭示了个体或微观伦理与人口或宏观伦理之间的界面。如果分娩后的女性要求重新缝合，妇科医生可能会尊重地告知她这种做法的负面影响，但不会违反道德或通常的法律要求而进行该程序。然而，作为健康政策和专业责任的问题，医生应该拒绝进行缝合，并建议他们的患者和社区，该程序是有害的，不受宗教或其他法令的要求，而且常常是非法的。重新缝合本身并不是生殖器切割（或“残害”），但当由医生进行时，可能会被视为默许缝合。这违反了医学职业道德，因为职业道德谴责将缝合（甚至是重新缝合）医学化，即使是作为减少伤害和感染风险的策略，也不应该将其用于未经训练的干预措施。
