(no subject)
Jun. 18th, 2010 12:00 pm*deep breathing*
Okay, so I saw this via![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
pyrotechnik initially (and thanks again for the link). This involves female genital cutting (FGC) so be aware of physical details and the general rage associated with the issue. However, this is not about why FGC is wrong, but is concerned with a piece of research published in the Journal of Urology in 2007.
Here is the abstract of the article
eta: The complete article, which is well worth a look. There are still a shitton of cultural/ethical issues with this, but a read of the article does cut through a lot of the hyperbole. I'm keeping this post up though, because the research methods/ethics angle is interesting to me. /eta.
This is a response on a Bioethics forum
This is another response on psychologytoday.com - Towards the end of the first page she gets to the seeming circumvention of the ethics board. It's difficult to say for certain without knowing more but:
"Because what he has approval for is retrospective chart review, a harmless little look back at what he recorded in the charts as having happened to his patients. What he didn't do was to get approval in advance for the "clitoral sensory testing" that he was writing down in the chart and then used to produce the systematic and generalized conclusions about his technique. This may sound like a technicality. It isn't."
Ok so, I don't even know where to start with this, but I was glad to become aware of it, and I suspect some of you may be as well.
pyrotechnik also provided a couple of links to contact the establishment involved: here, or here
I want to send a coherent and thorough email so I am holding off for a while, but I can only echopyrotechnik's comment: Make yourself heard.
Okay, so I saw this via
pyrotechnik initially (and thanks again for the link). This involves female genital cutting (FGC) so be aware of physical details and the general rage associated with the issue. However, this is not about why FGC is wrong, but is concerned with a piece of research published in the Journal of Urology in 2007.Here is the abstract of the article
eta: The complete article, which is well worth a look. There are still a shitton of cultural/ethical issues with this, but a read of the article does cut through a lot of the hyperbole. I'm keeping this post up though, because the research methods/ethics angle is interesting to me. /eta.
This is a response on a Bioethics forum
This is another response on psychologytoday.com - Towards the end of the first page she gets to the seeming circumvention of the ethics board. It's difficult to say for certain without knowing more but:
"Because what he has approval for is retrospective chart review, a harmless little look back at what he recorded in the charts as having happened to his patients. What he didn't do was to get approval in advance for the "clitoral sensory testing" that he was writing down in the chart and then used to produce the systematic and generalized conclusions about his technique. This may sound like a technicality. It isn't."
Ok so, I don't even know where to start with this, but I was glad to become aware of it, and I suspect some of you may be as well.
pyrotechnik also provided a couple of links to contact the establishment involved: here, or hereI want to send a coherent and thorough email so I am holding off for a while, but I can only echo
pyrotechnik's comment: Make yourself heard.
