Fistula KNH Campaign

Women who have undergone Female Genital mutilation there is a 98% chance of developing Fistula and high rate of deaths during birth....in Kenya alone 470 women die every month giving birth...and every year over 1000 women develop fistula...and then they are told it's a curse when they cannot control their urine and bowel movement. FGM kills and no form should be allowed...plse sign the petition
http://www.change.org/petitions/view/sign_the_petition_demanding_that_the_aap_revoke_its_policy_statement_immediately_ambassador_mashua
now you see what happened to this 76 years old woman as a child affected the rest of her life..just a little nick and prick it's murder!!!!! most of women suffer and hide in shame:( Every year, about 1000 women develop fistula, a condition in which one loses control of their bowels in this country according to statistics from AMREF . It is one condition that takes away the dignity of a woman and most victims are usually stigmatized and considered social outcasts. The good news though is that it is repairable. Sylvia Chebet today met a 76 year old grandmother who has lived with the condition more than half her life.
here is the petition again
http://www.change.org/petitions/view/sign_the_petition_demanding_that_the_aap_revoke_its_policy_statement_immediately_ambassador_mashua

Ambassador Lucy .s .Mashua President of Mashua's voice for the voiceless International
Assisting refugees in the US and representation in advocasy
The Global Ambassador for fighting Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and standing up for Women’s Rights.
And the Chairperson of a worldwide campaign against FGM.
http://twitter.com/Mashua
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Mashua-Against-FGM/225406701415

Mashua Against FGM global radio

Mashua Against FGM global radio

DESPITE OUR OUTRAGE AAP CONTINUES TO SUPPORT FGM!!!! BY AMBASSADOR MASHUA FGM SURVIVOR

International women's rights organisations from the US, Africa, and Europe were quick to respond to this outrageous proposition calling on the AAP to retract its 2010 statement and revert back to its much stronger 1998 statement on the subject. The AAP's response, however, has thus far been underwhelming and they continue to justify this latest position on three grounds:

• "Nicking" is a minor procedure equivalent to a pin prick or ear piercing and has no harmful health consequences.

• Offering the "nick" demonstrates cultural sensitivity in serving immigrant populations.

• The "nick" is a "compromise" that could prevent families from performing more severe forms of FGM on their daughters

FGM, which involves the partial or total removal of the female genitalia, is carried out across Africa, some countries in Asia and the Middle East, and by immigrants of practicing communities living around the world. It is estimated that up to 140 million women and girls around the world are affected by it. The US department of health and human services estimated in 1997 that over 168,000 girls and women living in the US have either been, or are at risk of being, subjected to FGM.

A comparison of the AAP's 1998 and 2010 statements clearly demonstrates a dilution in the organisation's understanding of FGM as a form of sex discrimination and gender-based violence performed to control women's sexuality, ensure virginity until marriage, and guarantee their acceptance into a particular community. A 2008 statement on FGM adopted by 10 prominent UN agencies clearly states that, "the guiding principles for considering genital practices as FGM should be those of human rights, including the right to health, the rights of children and the right to nondiscrimination on the basis of sex."

The AAP's casual comparison of "nicking" of girls' genitalia to ear piercing demonstrates just how far from the international framework the organisation currently stands. "Nicking" cannot be pulled out of context and must be understood within the larger gender politics of controlling women's bodies and sexual rights.

Indigenous grassroots groups and activists, including traditional leaders and ex-mutilators across Africa, have for decades engaged in transforming their local communities to abandon the practice of all types of FGM and adopted alternative rites of passage instead. The protocol to the African charter on human and people's rights on the rights of women in Africa, a widely supported regional human rights treaty that has been ratified by 27 African countries, specifically prohibits "through legislative measures backed by sanctions, all forms of female genital mutilation, including medicalisation and para-medicalisation of female genital mutilation".

According to a member of the AAP's bioethics committee, the intention behind the revised 2010 policy is to issue a "statement on safety in a culturally sensitive context". The new policy justifies the shift from the 1998 terminology of "female genital mutilation" to "female genital cutting (FGC) or ritual genital cutting, by claiming that the former is "culturally insensitive language". It further validates paediatricians' offer to "nick" girls genitalia to "satisfy cultural requirements". This raises the question of what culture is being talked about and who are the gatekeepers of this culture that are being appeased – and what is the so-called "cultural identity" being preserved. Culture is fluid and evolves over time as practices that are rooted in inequality or injustice are questioned and abandoned. The AAP's current proposition undermines and negates local, national, and regional anti-FGM initiatives in Africa, which are equally a part of the cultural identity of communities where FGM occurs
.
But most importantly, the statement completely fails to recognise that human rights standards are absolute and not to be compromised upon in the name of possible harm reduction. The principle behind safeguarding human rights is harm elimination. The statement flies in the face of all international and regional deliberations on the issue, which have concluded that any medically unnecessary procedure to alter female genitalia constitutes a human rights violation and therefore must not be tolerated.

"Nicking" constitutes Type IV FGM, and the UN interagency statement clarifies that, "it has been considered important to maintain a broad definition of FGM in order to avoid loopholes that might allow the practice to continue".

The AAP must retract its statement.plse sign this petition But most importantly, the statement completely fails to recognise that human rights standards are absolute and not to be compromised upon in the name of possible harm reduction. The principle behind safeguarding human rights is harm elimination. The statement flies in the face of all international and regional deliberations on the issue, which have concluded that any medically unnecessary procedure to alter female genitalia constitutes a human rights violation and therefore must not be tolerated.

"Nicking" constitutes Type IV FGM, and the UN interagency statement clarifies that, "it has been considered important to maintain a broad definition of FGM in order to avoid loopholes that might allow the practice to continue". The genocide in Africa began with a small loophole and millions ended up dead..and millions internally displaced,and countless orphans and Rape used as a weapon of war. I know my people just a micro way that's all we need and children will die and AAP stands to be blamed.

The AAP must retract its statement.please sign this petition http://www.change.org/petitions/view/sign_the_petition_demanding_that_the_aap_revoke_its_policy_statement_immediately_ambassador_mashua

The Global Ambassador for fighting Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and standing up for Women’s Rights.
And the Global Chairperson of a worldwide campaign against FGM.
http://twitter.com/Mashua

AAP ANY KIND OF FGM IS A VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS !! SHAME ON YOU BY AMBASSADOR MASHUA.

AAP OUR CHILDREN ARE NOT SAFE IN YOUR HANDS,


Please write these AAP members today! use this letter if you need to. All addresses I sent to are below. You don't have to cc everyone I did....

Via email and USPS
Dena S. Davis, JD
All AAP Bioethics Committee members (present, 06-07, Liaisons)

Re: Your Recent FGC Statement

Dear Sirs and Mesdames:

You should have recently received my letter dated February 9, 2010, cc'd to you that I sent to the Circumcision Task Force in regard to the pending statement on infant circumcision. (enclosed) I have read your recent Policy Statement on the Ritual Genital Cutting of Female Minors and feel the need to write again.

It is no secret that this country views the amputation or cutting of infant and child genitals in two very different ways depending on whether the infant or child is male or female. It is quite unfortunate that this manifests in a difference in the way we protect the rights of children legally, and socially. I fully expect a “medical ethics committee” such as yours to ignore common acceptance of cultural habit, and encourage the highest form of ethics when it comes to the conduct of medical professionals and the services they provide. You have failed us all in this respect.

It appears for several reasons that rather than commenting on the boundaries of medical ethics, you have appointed yourselves guides for cultural practices, and are attempting to influence the growing debate over equal rights because of personal bias, or financial interest.

First, there is no reason for you to use softer language (“cutting” vs. “mutilation”) in general with the pediatricians in this country. You could have simply recommended this change in language be used by the small percentage of physicians who have actual dealings with families who are seeking FGM, rather than trying to soften everyone’s perception of this practice.

Next, you fail to mention in your description of motivations for FGM ANY belief of medical benefit. It’s interesting that even though you are addressing medical professionals that you should fail to mention this common relevant motivation. People who practice FGM are just as convinced that it is medically beneficial as those are who practice MGM (Male Genital Mutilation), as any FGM abolitionist can tell you. Physicians ought to be prepared to respond to this argument if they are truly expected by you to dissuade families from the practice. Omitting this motivation conveniently avoids recognition of the obvious similarity of attempted medical justification of MGM.

While you do mention that physicians may need to address our country’s double standard, I notice that you do not have an actual justification to offer.

The most grievous diversion from your capacity as “medical ethicists” is the arguments made in favor of physicians carrying out a cultural ritual that not only serves no medical purpose, but is a painful breach of human rights, and our law.

Whether or not such involvement of a pediatrician in this ritual would dissuade other mutilations of that child, or others by influence, is simply conjecture, and is quite debatable. The one thing it is guaranteed to do, however, is legitimize the practice.

The only proper response to any request for the genital mutilation or simple cutting of a child’s genitals is one already made by the Committee on Bioethics of 93-94 in the policy on Informed Consent. No doubt this statement was made without the hindrance of taking our own familiarity with genital mutilation into consideration.

"…providers have legal and ethical duties to their child patients to render competent medical care based on what the patient needs, not what someone else expresses. … the pediatrician’s responsibilities to his or her patient exist independent of parental desires or proxy consent."

Further, your re-classifying of some forms of FGM as non harmful based on our cultural acceptance of a more harmful practice is a failure of logic and is an inappropriate manipulation of perspective. “Harm” is an opinion that can only be decided by the individual, and it is NOT your place to decide that a painful, non-medically indicated cut is not harmful, especially when performed upon a non-assenting patient. No other such cutting is acceptable for a physician.

I expected you to heed my warnings before about the discrepancies between the genital autonomy rights of men and women, but not by attempting to legitimize the abuse of female infants or children! We are reaching a point where these discrepancies are becoming obvious and publicized. As medical ethicists that speak to a changing nation, I suggest you take a lesson from the Bioethics Committee of 93-94 and keep your political agenda, personal preference for altered genitals, or the potential income from those unnecessary procedures out of your evaluations. It would also be a shame to see you change the policy quoted above to corroborate those inappropriate motivations, as you have with the recent FGM policy.

Finally, if there are any who want to remove their name from this policy, or who want to publicly speak against it, please know that you have a lot of support.

Sincerelly hoping you will do the right thing,&Global Ambassador for fighting Female genital mutilation and standing up for women rights.Lucy Mashua FGM SURVIVOR
(CREDITS TO MY SISTER Aubrey Taylor
Social Activist
Enclosure
cc with enclosure:
AAP Board of Directors Executive Committee
AAP Bioethics Committee of 93-94
William J. Clinton Foundation
To be placed in video form at www.youtube.com/user/whatUneverknew

Addresses:

“Consultant” and lead author of FGC Statement
Dena S. Davis, JD, PhD
Case Western Reserve University
Department of Bioethics
Cleveland, Ohio 44106
dena.davis@law.csuohio.edu

AAP Bioethics committee 2010:
*BOTH

*Mary E Fallat, MD –
University Pediatric Surgery
234 E Gray St Ste 210
Louisville, KY 40202-3702

*Ian Ronald Holzman MD FAAP
1 Gustave L Levy Place
New York, NY, 10029

Kathryn Louise Weise MD FAAP
Cleveland Clinic Main Campus
Mail Code S10A
9500 Euclid Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44195

*Armand H. Matheny Antommaria MD
Department of Pediatrics
Primary Children's Medical Center
100 North Medical Drive
Salt Lake City, UT 84113
armand.antommaria@hsc.utah.edu

*Sally Webb, MD
Pediatric Critical Care
MUSC Rutledge Tower
135 Rutledge Ave
RT290A
Charleston South Carolina 29403

Aviva L. Katz, MD
Children's North Medical Center
2599 Wexford Bayne Road
Sewickley, PA 15143
aviva.katz@chp.edu

AAP Bioethics committee 2006-2007 (this is the group credited for the current FGC Statement - and starred members above)
*BOTH

Douglas S. Diekema, M.D.
Department of Emergency Services
Children's Hospital & Medical Center
4800 Sand Point Way NE
Seattle, WA 98105

Steven R. Leuthner, MD
Pain and Palliative Care Center
9000 West Wisconsin Avenue Suite 640
Milwaukee, WI 53226
Leuthner@mcw.edu

*Lainie F. Ross, MD
Comer Children's Hospital
University of Chicago
5721 S. Maryland Avenue
Chicago, IL 60637

Liaisons 2010
*BOTH

*Philip L. Baese, MD
Neuro Behavioral Home Program
650 Komas Drive, Suite 200
Salt Lake City, UT, 84108

Steven J Ralston, MD (ACOG)
Tufts New England Medical Center
800 Washington St.
Department of Neonatology
Boston, MA 02111

*Ellen Tsai, MD (Canadian Paediatric Society)
Kingston General Hospital
76 Stuart Street
Kingston, Ontario K7L 2V7
Canada
tsaie@kgh.kari.net

Jessica Wilen Berg, JD (Legal Consultant)
Case Western Reserve University
Department of Bioethics
Cleveland, Ohio 44106
jwb14@case.edu
Jessica.berg@case.edu

Liaisons 06-07

Jeffrey L. Ecker, MD (ACOG)
Vincent Obstetrics
55 Fruit Street, Suite 4F
Boston, MA, 02114

Marcia Levetown, MD (American board of Pediatrics)
Healthcare Communication Associates .com
mlevetown@earthlink.net

cc addresses :
AAP Board of Directors Executive Committee

Errol Alden, M.D.
American Academy of Pediatrics
141 Northwest point Blvd.
Elk Grove, IL 60007

David T. Tayloe, M.D.
Goldsboro Pediatrics
2706 Medical Office Place
Goldsboro, NC 27534

Judith S. Palfrey, M.D.
President-Elect, AAP
Children's Hospital Boston
300 Longwood Avenue
Hunnewell 201.3
Boston, MA 02115

O. Marion Burton, MD (President – Elect AAP)
South Carolina School of Medicine
Department of Pediatrics
Colombia, SC 29208
mburton@uscmed.sc.edu

Committee on Bioethics, 1993 To 1994

Arthur Kohrman, MD, Chair
akohrman@northwestern.edu

Ellen Wright Clayton, MD
Vanderbilt University School of Medicine
Division of General Pediatrics
2200 Children's Way
8232 Doctors' Office Tower
Nashville, TN 37232-9225
ellen.w.clayton1@vanderbilt.edu

Joel E. Frader, MD
Children’s Memorial Hospital
2300 Children's Plaza,
707 W. Fullerton Ave.
Chicago, IL 60614-3363

Michael A. Grodin, MD
Boston University School of Public Health
715 Albany Street
Talbot T358W
Boston, MA 02118
grodin@bu.edu

Kathryn L. Moseley, MD
Livonia Health Center
20321 Farmington Road
Livonia, MI 48152-HCA
klmosele@med.umich.edu

Ian H. Porter, MD
Albany Medical Center
Department of Pediatrics - A88
47 New Scotland Avenue
Albany, NY 12208

Virginia M. Wagner, MD
Children's Hospital of Wisconsin
9000 W Wisconsin Ave
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53226

The man responsible (so to speak) for the passing of the FGM ban in '97
William J. Clinton
c/o William J. Clinton Foundation
55 West 125th Street
New York, NY 10027

Human beings live by symbols; therefore, any attack on a girl's
> genitals
> derives its meaning from a symbolic system that anchors her
> inequality.
> "Cultural sensitivity" is no less than acquiescence in the power
> imbalance
> that permitted such a harmful practice to arise in the first place,
> and, due
> to unbroken patriarchal power, to continue.!!
> Knowing that the AAP also subscribes to ideals of "universality,
> indivisibility and inalienability of human rights as confirmed by
> the UN
> declaration in 1993 at the Vienna human rights conference," we are
> confident
> that you will retract your endorsement of FGM Type IV and restore
> AAP's
> position as a champion of human, and in particular, girls' rights.
>

Ambassador Lucy .s .Mashua President of Mashua's voice for the voiceless International
Assisting refugees in the US and representation in advocasy
The Global Ambassador for fighting Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and standing up for Women’s Rights.
And the Chairperson of a worldwide campaign against FGM.
http://twitter.com/Mashua
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Mashua-Against-FGM/225406701415

TAKE ACTION AGAINST AAP AND FGM! By Amb Lucy Mashua

the AAP now says that certain types of forced female circumcision (a nick or piercing of the genitals) are okay!

Here are some excerpts from their updated Female Genital “Cutting” Policy Statement (they aren’t calling it “mutilation” anymore), which was issued on Monday:

“… the ritual nick suggested by some pediatricians is not physically harmful and is much less extensive than routine newborn male genital cutting. There is reason to believe that offering such a compromise may build trust between hospitals and immigrant communities…”

and:

“pricking or incising the clitoral skin…is no more of an alteration than ear piercing.”

Wait, there’s more.

The AAP is also calling for current FGM laws to be weakened to allow for some types of genital cutting on girls:

“It might be more effective if federal and state laws enabled pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a ritual nick as a possible compromise to avoid greater harm.”

If you are in disbelief, you are not alone. I am a survivor from the torture of FGM and this horror haunts till the day you die...we have to undergo reconstructive surgeries to at least get back some of our woman hood back AAP are no different from the genitals butcherers in our village! I encourage other survivors to speak up against the horror of FGM...

Mashua voice for the voiceless joins Equality Now calls on the American Academy of Pediatrics to retract a portion of their policy statement endorsing Type (IV) female genital mutilation of female minors

On 26 April 2010, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued a “Policy Statement – Ritual Genital Cutting of Female Minors” (AAP Statement) that in effect promotes changes in US federal and state laws to “enable[] pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a ritual nick” such as “pricking or incising the clitoral skin to satisfy cultural requirements.”

FGM is a harmful traditional practice with serious health risks that affects up to over 300 million women and girls around the world and I am one of them LUCY MASHUA. It is acknowledged internationally as a human rights violation and an extreme form of discrimination against women and girls. This practice involves the removal of various parts of female genitalia and is carried out across Africa, some countries in Asia and the Middle East, as well as in locations where FGM-practicing immigrants reside, including the United States. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimated in 1997 that over 168,000 girls and women living in the U.S. have either been, or are at risk of being, subjected to FGM.

Contrary to the assertion in the AAP Statement that the World Health Organization (WHO) is “silent on the pros and cons of pricking or minor incisions,” the WHO recognizes that pricking, piercing and incising of girls’ genitalia are forms of female genital mutilation (Type IV) with no health benefits and only harmful consequences. The WHO has acknowledged an increasing trend for medically trained personnel to perform FGM and has strongly urged health professions to refrain from performing such procedures. Furthermore, a United Nations interagency statement on “Eliminating Female Genital Mutilation” issued by 10 UN agencies in 2008 states, “[T]he guiding principles for considering genital practices as female genital mutilation should be those of human rights, including the rights to health, the rights of children and the right to non-discrimination on the basis of sex.”

TAKE ACTION!

Human rights groups in Africa (I had to be seperated from my children fighting FGM now AAP does this to me? it's all in vain? years of suffering seperation from my children/? see the reuniting video meeting my kids after four years http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=7285791 and around the world have campaigned tirelessly for decades to put an end to FGM. International and African human rights instruments recognize that FGM is a harmful cultural practice that is steeped in inequality and is a form of gender-based violence and discrimination. The Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa, which is a groundbreaking women’s rights legal instrument, requires African States to prohibit all forms of FGM, including specifically the medicalization of FGM.

On 26 April 2010, ironically on the same date as the issuance of the AAP Statement, the United States Congress introduced new legislation amending the 1996 federal law prohibiting FGM to make it illegal to transport girls out of the country for purposes of FGM, also known as the “vacation provision.” Such laws exist in European countries with substantial immigrant populations and there is evidence that legislation can act as an effective tool as part of the strategy against FGM. The AAP Statement itself gives the example of Somali immigrants in Scandinavia who abandoned the practice due to legal consequences.

In light of all the work done by human rights groups, the United Nations and other organizations to eradicate all forms of FGM, as well as efforts in the United States to protect girls from this practice, the AAP Statement stands out as lacking clarity on the issue and fails to recognize the established basic principles of girls’ rights as affirmed and reaffirmed by international human rights standards. A reduction in the severity of a human rights violation does not minimize the gravity of such a violation.

Equality Now urges the AAP to retract the portions of its Statement that in effect promote changes in US federal and state laws to enable physicians to “nick” girls’ genitalia. Doctors must instead be encouraged to identify and protect girls at risk of FGM by advising and referring their patients’ parents to not-for-profit or government agencies that can help parents understand the consequences of FGM.

Recommended Actions

Please write to the American Academy of Pediatrics asking it to retract the portions of the AAP Statement that in effect promote changes in US federal and state laws to enable physicians to “nick” girls’ genitalia. Urge the Academy to abide by the principles of gender equality in its practice and to recognize that human rights are universal and indivisible. TAKE ACTION!

Letters should go to:

Errol R. Alden, M.D.
FAAP, Executive Director/CEO, American Academy of Pediatrics
141 Northwest Point Blvd
Elk Grove Village, IL 60007-1019
Phone: +1 847 434 7500
Fax: +1 847 434 8385
Email: ealden@aap.org

Please send copies of your letters to the American Board of Medical Specialties and the American Board of Pediatrics at the addresses listed below:

Kevin B. Weiss, M.D., MPH
President and CEO, American Board of Medical Specialties
222 North LaSalle Street
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: +1 312 436 2600
Fax: +1 312 436 2700
Email: kweiss@abms.org

Alan R. Cohen, M.D.
Chair, The American Board of Pediatrics
111 Silver Cedar Court
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Phone: +1 919 929 0461
Fax: +1 919 913 2070
Email: abpeds@abpeds.org

Please also ask your own doctor to take action on this issue.

see the price I had to pay for fighting FGM and AAP does this to me?