FGM and Labiaplasty: What’s the Difference?

Over the past four months, I have been working alongside a couple of UK organisations that aim to research and campaign against Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). Recently, a friend who is training to be a midwife sent me an article on labiaplasty and FGM, written by a practicing midwife in the UK. This gist of this article was that women such as myself campaign against FGM from a poor standpoint, as we come from a society in which labiaplasty is becoming increasingly common; this therefore (apparently) makes us hypocrites.
For those who are not aware, labiaplasty—also known as ‘designer vagina surgery’—involves surgically ‘perfecting’ labia minora and majora. It is the latest, in an ever growing list, of cosmetic procedures chosen by women who want to enhance their image. While some women may seek this as a result of large labia (which can make sex painful), others do so because of the growing pressure to meet society’s expectations of what constitutes an attractive female form.

According to some doctors and midwives, there is little difference between FGM and labiaplasty. Those same individuals feel that Western societies should remove the plank of wood from their own eyes, before attempting to remove the speck from others. I have to strongly disagree with this. 

First of all, I will examine the pressures exerted on those who have undergone FGM and labiaplasty. To an extent, there are similarities. I have come across stories of FGM victims who were told their clitoris would grow extensively should they not have it removed, that men would not want to marry them, and that they could not fulfil their duties as a woman. Similarly, some women who undergo labiaplasty do so due to the images of perfection imposed by the pornographic material industry; these images of women with perfect labia suggest that is ‘normal’. However, that is where my agreement ends.

Any woman (at least in the UK), who seeks labiaplasty will be fully informed of what she is electing to do. Under British law, surgeons are duty bound to inform their clients of the risks involved. These women will then have their labia adjusted in a clean, surgical environment. Similarly, the element of consent involved is different. In the UK, consent by coercion is not consent at all. A person who consents to a medical procedure must have done so as a result of their own motivations. This consent in the absence of coercion is closely related to autonomy. Suggesting that a woman who chooses labiaplasty has not done so as a result of her own autonomous decision making process is patronising.

In contrast, a woman who undergoes FGM will be told that it is necessary for a host of reasons that are untrue. She will not be informed of the risks associated, which include an increased chance of dying as a result of pregnancy or childbirth, painful menstruation, infection, and an increased risk of AIDS. FGM is usually performed in unsanitary conditions, with no pain relief, no medical assistance, and as a result is dangerous and frightening. As FGM is often performed on young girls who are not capable of understanding these risks, it cannot be argued that they are fully informed—that is assuming there are informed of any risks, at all. These girls will be coerced by their parents, and other members of their communities. They don’t seek FGM, they are forced into it. Their autonomy is not used, it is taken away from them. 

Attempting to draw parallels between FGM and labiaplasty is not only ridiculous, it is thoroughly unhelpful. Each person who does this arms the individuals who campaign to maintain the practice of FGM with ammo, which they will then use against us. Meanwhile, the real issues surrounding FGM campaigns will be ignored; these issues are that young girls are being subjected to a procedure that is inherently violent, in conditions that are unsafe, without their full consent. Until we stop trying to draw such petty comparisons, the real issues will be overlooked, and women worldwide will continue to suffer.

So to those who would like to argue that we cannot campaign against FGM while labiaplasty is practiced in Western society, yes we can. I am by no means an individual who would undergo unnecessary cosmetic surgery, but if others do, then so be it. Tarring myself and my fellow campaigners with the same brush as those 
who inflict FGM will not help anyone.

Laura Mc Keever

A Second Term for Obama Means a Safer World for Women

As someone who has always been quite passionate about America’s politics, I have often been asked why I am ‘so bothered’. As many people already know or at least suspect, what happens in the White House has a broad impact on the rest of the world. Unbeknown to many, this impact extends into the delicate issues that surround women’s health, thanks to something known as ‘The Global Gag Rule’.

The Global Gag Rule was introduced by President Reagan in the 80s. It stated that any international NGO in receipt of US financial aid had two options regarding abortion:

1. They would either have to stay absolutely clear of the issue. This would mean no advice for women seeking one, no research into the effects, and no assistance for those who needed, or had had one.
2. Alternatively, continue working on such issues, and face losing any aid received from the US.

Clearly, this would place any NGO between a rock and a hard place. The two options above translate to either risking the lives of women while operating, or risking the funds required to execute other services, such as maternal care during pregnancy, and family planning advice pertaining to contraceptives.

Technically, the rule was beyond pointless for hard line Republicans wanting to stop abortions worldwide. It has been illegal for US federal funds to be used for such services since the 70s, which means US aid would not contribute to the pro-choice activities of any organisation anyway. However, this has not satisfied presidents like Reagan and Bush; despite NGOs using only their own money for abortion services, and a combination of US aid and other funding sources for other life saving treatments, the Republicans wanted to ‘gag’ them anyway. Fundamentally, this was a breach of their right to freedom of speech: they were not using US funds illegally, they were only using their own for abortion services, yet the Republicans wanted to hold them over a barrell anyway.

Naturally, this had quite an effect. Under George Bush Jnr, clinics across Africa were closed, most notably in Kenya--where many services suffered. This left women facing the perils associated with pregnancy without the care they required. In Nigeria, over 3000 women a year die due to not being able to access safe abortion services. The Global Gag Rule silenced those who were willing to advocate on their behalf and bring the changes that could save their lives.

After Bush was out of office, Obama brought change. It was estimated that his repeal of this rule meant that 32,000 less women died as a result of pregnancy and childbirth. That’s tens of thousands of children who now have mothers to care for them and help them flourish.

During the 2012 presidential election, both Romney and Ryan made it very clear that reinstating the Global Gag Rule would be high on their agenda. Not only that, but they also wanted to make it legislation rather than a presidential preference. This would have dire consequences for years to come, as any subsequent president would be faced with the task of picking this legislation apart. However, now that Obama has four more years, we can breathe a sigh of relief for those women who rely on US funds to contribute to the NGOs that will save their lives. In those four years, it is the responsibility of campaigners and activists at a grassroots level, as well as governments and organisations like the UN, to bring the changes required to make sure women no longer have to suffer and anticipate harmful policies by men like Reagan, Bush, and Romney.

By Laura McKeever

Not All Feminists Have Hairy Armpits

Although this post won’t focus solely on the aesthetics of feminists, it was feminist imagery that inspired it. In the UK there is currently an ongoing campaign which asks Dominic Monaghan to remove page 3 models from The Sun newspaper. For those who are not aware, page 3 models are attractive women who pose semi-naked on page 3 (obviously) of the sun newspaper. The idea behind the campaign is to prevent the normalisation of women as objects, thus preventing sexual assault and rape prevalence.

The campaign has attracted somewhat mixed reviews, with groups of both men and women supporting and condemning it. Today, I logged onto my Facebook to see a post from a female friend blasting the campaign, suggesting we hold a breast fondling day to counteract it. Part of her post included ‘feminists with hairy armpits need to shut up’. It makes no difference to me whether women--be they feminist or not--have hairy armpits. What irked me was this idea that all of us feminists are bitter, grotesque whinge-bags who are jealous of others who want to get their breasts out.

It isn’t solely the aesthetic presumptions that annoy me here. What annoys me is that feminist is a dirty word, and that we are all seen as women who are verbose with no good reason. That is not true. First of all, some of the world’s most beautiful women are feminists. Natalie Portman, Angelina Jolie, Oprah Winfrey...I needn’t go on. That aside, do our looks matter? We do actually have a purpose, and our roles across feminist networks don’t revolve around winding up misogynists for the sake of it.

I consider myself to be a feminist, and I am sure the bloggers of Delta Women do too--both male and female. I place a lot of focus on reproductive and sexual health; I want women to be able to take charge of their birth, not suffer from maternal mortality, empower themselves with contraceptives, and have the right to say who has sex with them, how, and when. From the rape victims of the DRC, to the women too scared to carry condoms in their purse here in the UK for fear of being labeled a ‘slut’, I want to ensure they are able to take charge of their bodies and their health. In addition to this, I want women to be entitled to the same sexual and reproductive rights as men. That means reducing the prevalence of FGM, and ensuring that childbirth and pregnancy are taken seriously in the medical field. On the somewhat more contentious side of things, I want abortion to be legalised; I want women to have the right to choose, no matter where they are in the world.

I have worked in places where the value of a woman’s life is second to that of her male counterparts, and what people don’t realise is that women’s equality means a better way of life for all. Women are caregivers, workers, and they can influence people politically. If a woman is healthy, her children will be well cared for and her family will be supported emotionally and financially.

What I am trying to get at here is that as a feminist, I am not someone who wants to make life boring, or annoy people by ruining their fun. Unfortunately, this is the image that is predicted by those who either do not understand what feminism is about and those who would rather we do not have equal rights.

Areas of the World Untouched by Basic Human Rights

There are some areas of the world that have fascinated me for all the wrong reasons. Here in the UK, I have access to consistent healthcare, I can choose to do what I want with my body, and I am entitled to educate myself. Unfortunately, there are areas of the world where women are not afforded the same rights as myself. Although there are more areas of oppression than there are of freedom, one is particularly horrific for women around the world: The Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Despite its somewhat promising name, the DRC has become known as the most dangerous place for a woman in the world to live. For every five minutes that passes, four rapes will occur. One of the major factors influencing a woman’s health outcomes in the DRC is the sexual and gender based violence that occurs there. In 2005, The WHO tried to gather information on the injuries sustained by women in the DRC who had suffered from SGBV. Focus was placed on fistulas, which are often sustained as a result of mass rape. Although some information was gathered, the WHO believe that there was multiple missed opportunities to obtain accuracy. Women in the DRC tend to report violence to a variety of bodies, ranging from police officers to tribal leaders. Without accurate information, a targeted approach cannot be taken.

The end result of mass SGBV is devastating. Physical implications include unwanted pregnancies, STDs, AIDS, and fistulas. Women will also experience psychological traumas, and those who are made to give birth to children of rape may reject their babies.

In order to deal with the aftereffects of SGBV in the eastern areas of the DRC, the delivery of healthcare needs to be assessed. Women who become victims often cannot access the care services they need. Expanding these services and training local health care workers will aid in their recovery. Agencies working together can also contribute towards resolving the situation. Although it is worth noting that both the UN and WHO are working towards preventing SGBV and treating the aftereffects, crimes continue to be perpetuated across the eastern parts of the DRC. Empowering women on a national and global scale would allow them to gain enough control to prevent such atrocities, and it would establish a sense of mutual respect between both sexes. Ultimately, issues of war need to be addressed, but guaranteeing basic human rights is something that cannot be ignored.

By Laura McKeever

Why Todd Akins Legitimate Rape Statement is Offensive to Women Worldwide

This August, a member of the Republican party hit the headlines worldwide for all the wrong reasons. Although this is not an uncommon occurrence as far as politicians are concerned, right-wing senate candidate Todd Akin has caused offense to millions of women worldwide.

Todd Akin was recorded as stating that victims of “legitimate rape” would not fall pregnant, insinuating that those who do fall pregnant have not actually experienced rape. Akin claimed that women who have been “legitimately” raped would feel so traumatised, that their bodies would develop biological mechanisms that would reject any potential pregnancy. While it has been scientifically proven that stress has the potential to cause miscarriages, there is no evidence at all that a woman will feel so traumatised after rape that she will absolutely miscarry. It has been suggested that Akin’s poor understanding of the biological mechanisms that occur after rape have been inspired by pro-life groups like ‘Physicians for Life’ which contort biology and epidemiology to scare women into not aborting.

Since making these claims, Todd Akin has retracted them, but maintains his belief that women who fall pregnant as a result of rape should not “punish” the “child” (aka foetus) by aborting, and should instead continue with the pregnancy. The initial idea that any rape is not legitimate is highly offensive. Since the Rwandan genocide, over 20,000 women there have been recorded as delivering babies that are products of rape. Note the word ‘recorded’, this number could be much higher, as many women will not come forward about their rape due to the shame and terror they have felt as a result. In addition to this, women across the northeastern regions of the Democratic Republic of the Congo are still subjected to systematic rape on a daily basis. It is estimated that for every five minutes in the DRC, four women will be raped. In the DRC, The City of Joy acts as an emotional rehab for rape victims, while women at the Panzi hospital seek medical care for the fistulas they have endured as a consequence of being raped multiple times. I wonder if Todd Akin would visit either institution to let the women there know they weren’t actually raped?

Todd Akin’s statement belittles the harrowing experiences of women who have suffered across the world. One visitor to the Panzi Hospital in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has described being raped by 30 or 40 men, after which they brutalised her with their fists and sticks. She had to suffer from infections, before giving birth to a child. Disturbingly, her case is not uncommon in the country. Could Akin really claim the horror she suffered was illegitimate? What’s more, can he honestly deny any woman who has been through her experience the chance to end her physical connection with it by aborting a resulting pregnancy? While I don’t doubt there are mothers worldwide who love and cherish the children they have delivered from rape, there are also many who cannot look into the eyes of someone who reminds them of the person who took their dignity. Those women deserve the chance to abort, without fear of social or legal consequences.

Until men like Todd Akin no longer have a say in the world’s most powerful political systems, it is unlikely that women worldwide will escape the brutalities they face every day. For as long as they are allowed to make the statements they make, and push for the legislation they want, women will continue to suffer at the hands of men who use gender based violence to suppress them. Even when statements like Todd Akins are retracted, they still cause damage. Not only do such statements delegitimize the horror of rape, they will allow the crime in itself to continue. Until the world’s political system is filled with men and women who are prepared to end sexual crimes rather than redefine how they occur and what should happen afterwards, rape will continue en-masse.

Written by Laura McKeever

The Beginning of the End?

While there is no place in the world I believe discrimination against women and girls has been completely eliminated, I think I’ll have quite a few supporters when I say that certain countries are running that last lap. I know I haven’t done any in depth research on this yet but I tend to think that the Scandinavians seem to be winning this particular race right now. Nigeria is not the last but let’s just say it currently looks like a lot of countries will need to trip and fall for Nigeria to come anywhere close to winning. Bear with me, there’s a reason for all this stating of the obvious. 

I’m trying to highlight the fact that lots of things that work perfectly well in one part of the world may be a disaster in some other place with very different experiences (take marmite for instance ☺). In a country where mum and dad are generally on the same level; with opinions that equally count both within the family and in society as a whole; it makes perfect sense to encourage sex selection as a way to have that ‘ideal’ 2.2 children family with a boy and a girl. The couple can playfully tease each other with jokes about how the dad wants a boy because he can never understand the super advanced and multi-layered brain of females (just kidding, you guys are just as smart as we are) and how mum wants a daughter so someone can notice she just got a new dress. But at the end of the day you know that it’s all in jest and that if they get to choose the children they will have, it’ll be 50/50 on average. 

Now let’s take that culture cursor over to Africa, specifically Nigeria, and click on that part of the world to see what generally happens when that very same subject comes up. Hmm, looks like things are very different over there. What’s that? You’re saying the cliché is that mothers are continually stomping over to matrimonial homes, threatening to throw out their daughters-in-law for committing the sin of having too many children with XX chromosomes and too few or none with the almighty XY. And it’s not like the grandfathers are more accommodating of the ‘evil witch’ with all the female children and that’s why they aren’t stomping over along with their wives. She’s just the messenger; the secretary that does the leg work as women often are, if she wasn’t doing the stomping herself then he’d have to take on the job himself. And pretty often the father of those girls (who by the way, are probably suffering from low self-esteem of the worst kind at this point. Come to think of it, some may even become those grandmothers who have so little esteem for themselves as women that they end up treating their future daughters-in-law like their mother was treated. Ahh, so that’s how the cycle is reinforced) joins the bandwagon and decides that his lady is not to be had and held after all if she doesn’t have a brood of rowdy boys. That’s the bit the vows forgot to add. In addition to all of that, the Nigerians also have countless unimaginative movies that deal with this very same subject. All tell the same story in the exact same way. Helpless mother of girls cries like it’s a sport, prays to God to give her the boy that will vindicate her, she gets her super-boy and all is well. Not once have I seen an ending where she never has a boy but the detractors see the error of their ways when those girls become productive members of society rather than dependent idiots. God forbid, she must have a boy otherwise how on earth will it be a happy ending. 

Maybe you see what I’m getting at by now. I know, I tend to go through a lot of yada yada before I get to my main point. So here it is, does it make any sense at all to introduce any method of sex selection in a country were stories like this are the norm? Actually, it does make perfect economic sense for the conscience-free trader to introduce sex selection methods in a country that tends to think that boys are the children worth having so will give their eye-teeth to get as many of those babies as possible. So let me rephrase, does it make any sense for government to let such businesses thrive in a country where it is obvious that we still have lots of issues to get through and will soon have a ratio of boys to girls at 9:1 (I seriously do not think I am exaggerating) if everyone could choose the sex of their children? Okay, maybe you are uber-libertarian and do not think the government should be butting into your business. At the very least, surely you’d think that there’s no way a sensible government would be advertising and promoting the use of sex selection. I thought so too until I went to camp for the mandatory government funded NYSC program for young graduates and had a guy shove books about how to select the sex of the children I’m definitely supposed to have someday in my face and that of everyone else in camp. I don’t know if his organization sends a representative to every NYSC camp but I’m pretty sure he had permission to come and talk to us since his presentation was included in the lectures we were all supposed to attend as part of the program. So, yeah, in my book that equals being promoted by the government. So apparently our government is not so sensible, brand new information…NOT. 

In addition to government sponsorship, there are fliers for Predicting sex selection kits on pretty much every bus in Abuja currently. Which leads me to ask again, since the government is a product of society and therefore isn’t particularly leading the cheer for women, why aren’t any groups who should be leading the cheer for women reacting to all of this stuff about sex selection and raising an uproar about the ‘beginning of the end of Nigerian women’ (That too is not really an exaggeration and even if it is, things like this need slogans that pack a punch to get our attention). Because I definitely haven’t seen any of that, all I’ve seen are countless articles in newspapers like this and this that suggest that sex selection is a God sent miracle. Of course, the writers go all ostrich-style on us and start out their articles talking about couples who have all boys and want a girl but we all know that’s not why this new idea is becoming more and more popular. The expert says it himself. 

So here’s a developing trend that shows yet again that developing countries are getting all the latest technologies without always getting modern ways of thinking that need to go along with them. I’ve just been thinking that if the government makes any more moves to support this without addressing the obvious fact that females will be grossly discriminated against and trying to prevent that, then I’m going to need to add this to the list of stuff I need to start something like a change.org petition on and maybe this time I’ll actually do it. But till then I’ve just been wondering what other people think about this whole sex selection deal.

By Laura McKeever

Taking the Taboo out of Abortion and Contracceptives

‘Abortion’ is a bit of a dirty word across the world. Even the majority of those who take a pro-choice stance do not see it as a valid reproductive choice alongside birth and adoption. While a growing number of people who are religious have begun to support a woman’s right to choose, religious organisations continue to equate the practice of abortion with crimes like genocide and infanticide. In addition to this, many countries where contraceptives are legally available do not have a high uptake. It therefore stands to reason that better access to contraceptives, as well as abortions, could reduce the maternal mortality rate significantly.

To examine abortion around the world, I have chosen to compare three fairly strict countries, with a country that has become more liberal. My chosen strict countries are Somalia, Nigeria, and Ghana. In the order I just listed them, they each go from being extremely pro-life, to slowly shifting towards a pro-choice stance. My liberal country is India; a place where abortion has been legal since 1971.

My first case study is Somalia, a country that has recently witnessed some excellent constitutional developments in the battle against female genital mutilation. In Somalia, the average number of children born to each woman is 7.3 and around 1,600/100,000 die as a result of childbirth. Due to the breakdown of central government in Somalia, it is hard to determine what the exact penalty against abortion is. However, articles 418-422 and 424 of the 16th of December 1962 Penal Code make it clear that abortion is only acceptable in order to save a woman’s life. Anyone performing an abortion can expect to face 1-5 years in prison, as can the woman--if she gave consent. In addition to this, medical professionals who perform abortions in Somalia can expect increased jail terms. There is no direct support for contraceptive use in the country; when coupled with the jail terms faced by women and medical professionals who perform abortions, it is easy to see why the maternal mortality rate there is so high.

My second case study is Nigeria. Nigeria has two abortion laws; one from the southern states, and the other for the northern states. However, between the two states the current position on the following situations are a no: rape, incest, foetal impairment, and economic or social reasons. While the government in Nigeria do make maternal mortality their concern and support the use of contraceptives, the 4-5% uptake of contraceptives suggests that not enough is being done to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Women in Nigeria will have 5.2 children in their lifetime--on average--and the maternal mortality rate is around 1000/100,000. A woman who consents to an abortion can expect to face a seven year jail term, while someone who performs one can face up to 14 years in prison; this is extended if the woman is injured, or dies. Again, these barriers contribute to the high maternal mortality rate.

Case study number three is Ghana. In Ghana, the maternal mortality rate is around 740/100,000. Each woman has around 6.4 children, and only 10% of women use contraceptives. When compared with many other countries in Africa, Ghana is bordering on being liberal. While women are not permitted to seek an abortion for economic and social reasons, recent UN data suggests that around 20% of women who have given birth in Accra have also had an induced abortion for other reasons. However, abortion is still criminalised in Ghana, and women who induce one illegally--which includes without the use of a medical practitioner, even when the reason is valid-- can expect to spend up to five years in prison. As the medications and facilities needed to perform abortions in Ghana are lacking, many women use illegal means. When you consider that any woman seeking medical assistance in the face of an illegal abortion induced infection could face prison, it is no surprise the maternal mortality rate is so high.

While illegal abortions alone do not cause maternal mortality rates to be so high, they do contribute to 15% of cases worldwide--according to WHO statistics. Legalising abortion would lower that statistic. Abortion continuing to be illegal does nothing to prevent it, which can be seen from the number of women who die after seeking one illegally each year. In addition to this, more needs to be done to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Not only does ‘abortion’ need to stop being a dirty word, so does ‘condoms’ and ‘contraceptives’.

India, a country that has been fairly liberal in terms of abortions since 1971, has a maternal mortality rate of around 571/100,000. While this is significantly lower than Somalia, a country with relatively no access to abortions or contraceptives, it is still too high. Abortions are only available in hospitals, and must be provided by a registered medical practitioner. While the second condition makes sense, the first does not. Not every woman in India will live near a hospital, which means between 3 and 4 million still seek illegal abortions each year. In addition to this, women under the age of 18 require the written consent of a guardian. Contraceptive uptake stands at 36%, with access continuing to be an issue.

All four of these countries demonstrate how abortion needs to be less of a taboo issue, rather than just something that is gradually made legal. While Somalia and Nigeria show how extreme laws contribute to high maternal mortality rates, Ghana and India demonstrate how a lack of access to facilities continue to perpetuate the use of illegal abortions. Until laws are changed and resources are improved, illegal abortions will continue to cause 15% of maternal mortality related deaths worldwide.

All statistics were taken from the United Nations website.

By Laura McKeever

World Hepatitis Day 2012: Is Enough Being Done to Help Women

In 2010, it was decided that every July 28th would be known as World Hepatitis Day. As one of four diseases to be granted a specific day (the other three being Malaria, HIV/AIDS, and TB), Hepatitis is known as a ‘silent disease’. Across the world some countries are tackling Hepatitis head on, but many are failing to give the disease the recognition it needs in order for it to be prevented. As a result of this, millions of women across the world are suffering.

For women, the lack of attention paid to Hepatitis can come with serious health implications. Unfortunately, it is women who are more at risk, and women who are less likely to access life-saving treatment. Hepatitis E, which is spread via the fecal oral route, is usually contracted as a result of poor hygiene practices and unsafe drinking water. Women who are pregnant are particularly susceptible to the disease; once they have caught it, there is no specific cure, and they are at risk of liver failure. In addition to this, the disease can spread to the fetus, and increase the risk of miscarriage and stillbirth.

Other more lethal forms of Hepatitis, such as B and C, are spread through the exchange of bodily fluids. Both types are on the rise among drug users and sex workers, and with many sex workers in the developing world experiencing poor access to barrier contraceptives, routine vaccinations, and sexual health screening, women are naturally at risk of catching the disease. As many female sex workers do not carry condoms due to the stigma attached, cannot afford costly Hepatitis B vaccinations, and are not aware of this silent disease, they often only recognize the signs of Hepatitis when it is too late.

Although 2012’s World Hepatitis Day highlighted successes in Australasia and the Far East, there are many areas of the world that are failing to meet the demands of this silent disease. For example, in Ghana a vaccination program is available, but at the cost of 60Cedi--a price that many Ghanians cannot afford. The same pattern is repeated across many African countries. However, the governments of such countries could learn from Nigeria, as its health service has made significant attempts to combat the disease.

It is now the case that a hotline is available in Nigeria to those who feel they may be at risk of, or have developed, hepatitis. This hotline allows Nigerians to access advice on treatment, symptoms, and prevention. In addition to this, it can direct those who call towards doctors who can treat the disease, as well as vaccination programs. This could be the way forward for women who otherwise would not be able to access vaccinations. Ultimately, what benefits women will also benefit their husbands and children. In addition to this, over 10,000 children were issued toothbrushes to combat Hepatitis types A and E, which are spread due to poor hygiene. This is a great example of how it is possible to combine prevention and education en-masse.

Although these measures are great, they should not be seen as silver bullets in the battle against this deadly disease. All governments, not just Nigeria’s, should make it their mission to educate those who are at risk. Sexual health programs across Nigerian schools would alert both men and women to the ways that Hepatitis is spread, and how to prevent it. Similarly, routine vaccinations for types A and B would significantly reduce the disease’s prevalence. As it stands, only 9% of Nigerian people are vaccinated against the disease, despite it being 50 x more infectious than HIV, and 19 million people having it. Finally, the stigma that surrounds the use of barrier contraceptives needs to be eliminated. This is particularly the case for female sex workers, who often fail to use them for fear of being persecuted.

In 2012, Hepatitis continues to be known as the ‘silent disease’. The World Health Organization have taken a big step by introducing World Hepatitis Day, and now governments across the world need to take a strong stance in order to prevent the disease. If each country were to honour this day by introducing educational programs, greater access to barrier contraceptives, and free vaccination programs, the prevalence of this disease could be reduced drastically.

08058206916 - Nigerian Hepatitis Helpline


By Laura McKeever

Female Genital Museum

Over the past two weeks, Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) has become a broad feature in the British media. As the founder of 28 Too Many Ann-Marie Wilson has successfully published an article in the Huffington Post on the number of children at risk of being subjected to FGM, The Independent has analysed what is known as ‘The UK’s Cutting Season’. Now that the British summer holidays are in full swing, around 25,000 girls are at risk of being subjected to FGM against their will. This year, Nigeria sponsored a resolution at the World Health Assembly to end FGM, yet the practice is still rampant across the country. As it is clear that FGM continues to be practiced worldwide, it is important to address what more could be done in countries like the UK and Nigeria, and how lessons can be learned from successful FGM intervention programs.

In the UK, laws exist to prevent the practice of FGM. The Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 imposes penalties of up to 14 years in prison on those who practice FGM, and those who aid and abet occurrences of the crime. The 2003 act is an amendment of the previous 1985 act. Despite the act being introduced, not a single person has been prosecuted. It is clear that the act’s existence alone is not enough to prevent the crime from occurring, and that it is simply empty rhetoric in the battle against this atrocious crime. In order for any criminal act to be effective, the crime needs to be reported. As the practice of FGM is against children who are too young to have a voice, or too afraid to speak out, it is unlikely that they will step forward as victims. As the communities that practice FGM shroud the practice in secrecy, it is rare that anyone will speak out on the child’s behalf.. Until recently, FGM has continued to be an issue that is largely unheard of in the UK, with many leading politicians being unaware of what it involves, or even that it is practiced. In addition to this, the NHS does not offer reconstructive surgery to victims of the practice. Based on this, it is clear that the UK is failing to protect those who are at risk.

The UK’s failure to prevent FGM does not mean that the existence of legislation is always redundant. In France, over 100 prosecutions have been made, but there are stark differences between the way France approaches FGM, and the way the UK approaches it. It is believed that France’s successes are due to the annual health checks performed on young girls at risk across the country. These include a brief look at the external genitalia by a medical professional in specialised clinics until the age of six. Once the child begins attending school, these annual checks are continued by the school nurse. In addition to this, French campaigners have reported successfully placing injunctions on those who have been reported by family members for planning to mutilate their daughters. It could be argued that the tougher stance on those who have practiced FGM in France has acted as a deterrent. Alternatively, it could be that France’s determination to make the issue public raises enough awareness for communities to abandon the practice. A study by the University of Barcelona has demonstrated that France as a country have seen a reduction in the number of girls subjected to FGM. It could therefore be argued that the French’s determination to make FGM a public issue has created enough awareness to encourage communities to cessate the practice of it.

In contrast, the women of Nigeria have been subjected to the same horrors as those in the UK and France, but the practice of FGM is far more widespread, and harder to combat. It is estimated that in some areas, up to 56% of women have been subjected to FGM, while in others it is as low as 0.4%. In addition to this, experts believe that ‘official’ statistics are not a true reflection of those women who have not been reached by researchers, and therefore the real percentages may be higher. In a literature review conducted by the World Health Organisation (WHO), it was found that communities where interventions existed had seen a reduction in the practice of FGM. The WHO’s literature review focused on communities in Mali, Senegal, Burkina Faso, Egypt, Nigeria, and Ethiopia. As well as finding that interventions in the form of educational sessions were effective, the WHO’s review detected barriers to making such interventions successful.. These barriers included a lack of financial compensation, as well as husbands refusing to grant their wives permission to attend educational sessions.

In order for FGM to be eradicated around the world, all countries need to take a unified and consistent stance. While legislation exists to protect women in countries like the UK, its existence alone is ineffective in preventing the crime. Human rights laws that focus on abuse and torture in Nigeria can be loosely interpreted to prosecute perpetrators of the crime, but areas where interventions do not exist witness an ever-increasing number of girls who are subjected to it. By establishing a sense of consistency, FGM can be universally wiped out.

So what is it that countries need to be consistent with? In addition to providing clear legislation, interventions and support for men and women who are interested in them are needed. Medical outreaches that focus on educating communities on the benefits of eradicating FGM should be expanded; this should focus on male members of the community, as well as female. By establishing a sense of unity against the issue across the world, practices such as taking children to other nations to undergo FGM can also be halted.

If you personally are interested in ending FGM, you can begin by writing to your local MP, congressman, or any other relevant governmental representative and ask them to do more to address the issue. The more our leaders are pushed to end the practice, the more likely it is they will do something about it. In addition to this, you can sign the following petitions to press world leaders to take a stand against FGM:
http://www.endfgm.eu/en/petition/ - Europe

http://www.petitiononline.com/fgm2003/petition.html - United States

http://forcechange.com/23321/prosecute-female-genital-mutilation-in-the-uk/ - United Kingdom

http://www.enditnow.org/petition-lightbox - International


By Laura Mckeever