,
3 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
Since Detroit case, more & more bioethicists arguing Western countries should tolerate "ritual nicking" of girls' vulvas, using tolerance for male circumcision, which is more invasive and non-consensual, as part of reasoning for why. Latest example here: buff.ly/2L0un9q 
See, e.g., arguments such as the below. Why I argue moral case should not be based in benefit-to-risk but rather child's right to decide whether their own genitals should be exposed to any type/degree of risk from cutting when mature & can consent
More here, commenting on the @AmerAcadPeds support for 'ritual nicking' in 2010 which they explicitly premised on its being less harmful than male circumcision which is tolerated. The AAP bioethicist on the male circumcision policy - Douglas Diekema - advised on this paper.
