LAUSR

PROBLEM STATEMENT FGM is considered a harmful practice by WHO and SDG 5.3. However, FGM is increasingly being medicalized to reduce negative health effects, and is thus suggested as a harm reduction strategy in response to these perceived health risks. In many countries of origin, the prevalence rates of medicalization increase, and in countries of migration such as UK and USA, a number of court cases, raised the debate between public health approach and the human rights approach. Given that professional medical associations, such as the AAP in the USA, and other health professionals, repeatedly have promoted nicking and pricking as a harm reduction strategy, the performance of these 'minor' types, could also be considered as a form of medicalization and raises concerns with type IV category of the WHO classification. The purpose of this paper is to summarize arguments in favor and against medicalization which appears to undermine SDG 5.3. RESULTS Using a case-study approach for countries with recent court cases, we will discuss responses by those countries to medicalization and FGM, and explore the ongoing public discourse in those countries concerning harm reduction versus human rights, and the contradiction of medical ethics and criminal justice system. CONCLUSION From the case studies we will summarize the policy responses and arguments used to counter and promote medicalization of FGM.