LONDON: 2 doctors face FGC charges over consented "designer vagina" ops

the Evening Standard
November 22, 2016

Doctors face prosecution over genital cosmetic surgery in London clinics

by Martin Bentham
Two London doctors face prosection over 'designer vagina' procedure.

Two London doctors are facing prosecution for allegedly carrying out illegal cosmetic surgery on women at clinics in the capital.

The women who had the “designer vagina” procedures were adults who paid for the surgery in the belief that it would make them more attractive.

But Scotland Yard detectives are now carrying out a criminal investigation after being alerted to the cases and deciding that the doctors’ actions involved a potential breach of legislation outlawing female genital mutilation.

Files on both doctors have now been submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service for charging decisions. A file has also been sent to prosecutors on a third case in Cheshire.

The news will raise hopes that a first conviction under anti-FGM legislation could be secured after the failure last year of the only prosecution so far.

The police investigations will also prompt renewed debate about cosmetic genital surgery, which includes labia reduction and vaginal tightening.

It comes after the pop star Sinitta revealed plans to have her own “vaginoplasty” filmed and broadcast online.

The singer, 53, has already put footage of a friend having a “designer vagina” operation on the Periscope site.

Such procedures — which critics say are wrongly promoted as enhancing sexual pleasure and attractiveness — are carried out widely at clinics in Harley Street and elsewhere.

The Home Office warned two years ago, however, in evidence to Parliament, that the operations may be illegal unless there was a medical or psychological reason for them.

That prompted renewed attention on the issue from police and prosecutors, resulting in the criminal investigation into the two London doctors.

It is understood that in both cases prosecutors believe the evidential test which they apply before bringing charges has been met.

Prosecutors are assessing whether bringing charges is in the public interest. Sources say that since the application of law to “designer vagina” surgery has not been tested in court, government departments are being consulted.

The views of royal medical colleges and anti-FGM campaign groups will also be considered as prosecutors prepare guidance to determine their approach. This is expected to be completed by the end of the year. Decisions over bringing charges will follow.

“So-called designer vagina surgery is classed as FGM when it comes to rules on mandatory reporting,” said a source. “The question [here] is whether it is in the public interest to prosecute.”

There are no official figures on the number of cosmetic genital operations carried out, since many are conducted privately, but doctors believe the surgery is becoming more common.

A study by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has blamed the trend on “marketing by the private sector” and images online.

Doctors warn that women are being pressured by “unrealistic representations of vulval appearance in popular culture” and the advertising of the surgery as an “unproblematic lifestyle choice”.

A report by the British Society for Paediatric and Adolescent Gynaecology on labia reduction has warned that there is “no scientific evidence” to support the practice and that the health risks, particularly to girls under 18, include infection and a loss of sensitivity.

There are similar concerns about surgery designed to increase the size of the “g-spot” and tighten the vagina.

Campaign groups against FGM have complained that a “double standard” is applied under which ethnic minority communities, which have traditionally practised mutilation, are being targeted by law enforcers while identical surgery carried out on white women for cosmetic reasons is tolerated.

The Commons Home Affairs Committee raised the same concern in a 2014 report and asked Theresa May, then the home secretary, to consider whether legislation was needed to close this potential “loophole”. Mrs May replied that the 2003 Female Genital Mutilation Act covered cosmetic surgery.

In a submission to Parliament, she added: “The 2003 Act does not contain any exemption for cosmetic surgery. If a procedure ... is unnecessary for physical or mental health ... then it is an offence  [making MGC an offence]... it would be for a court to decide if cosmetic surgery constitutes mutilation and is therefore illegal.”

The Crown Prosecution Service confirmed that it was assessing three files on suspected FGM offences, but declined to comment further.

The Met also declined to comment.
[No mention of the elephant in the room, informed consent.]

LONDON: FGC law should outlaw "designer vaginas" - MPs

The Guardian
March 14, 2015

Outlaw 'designer vagina' surgery, say MPs

Home affairs committee says FGM Act should be expanded to cover cosmetic procedures that have no medical purpose, though government says this is already covered in law
by Alexandra Topping
Genital surgery to create so-called “designer vaginas” should be outlawed under legislation designed to prevent female genital mutilation, according to a group of MPs.

A report from the home affairs select committee has called the laws governing female genital cosmetic surgery ambiguous and said the 2003 FGM law must be changed so it covers the procedures, which have no medical purpose.

“We cannot tell communities in Sierra Leone and Somalia to stop a practice which is freely permitted on Harley Street,” said Keith Vaz, the chairman of the select committee.
[Strictly speaking, cosmetic surgery is already outlawed in England under the  Female Genital Mutilation Act, 2003: (2)But no offence is committed by an approved person who performs—
  (a)a surgical operation on a girl which is necessary for her physical or mental health.. - because it is a stretch to say that a "designer vagina"  is "necessary for her ... mental health"] The government has previously stated that the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 does not contain any exemption for cosmetic surgery, and it had no plans to amend the act. But “evidence demonstrates that the police, midwives and campaigners would all like to see greater clarity on this point,” stated the report.

The select committee also risked creating a diplomatic spat with the Royal Colleges – which represent medical professionals – accusing their members of not doing enough “to encourage their members to report cases of FGM”.

The report notes that in Heartlands hospital in Birmingham, 1,500 cases of FGM were recorded over the past five years, with doctors seeing six patients who have undergone the procedure each week. “There seems to be a chasm between the amount of reported cases and the lack of prosecutions,” it says. “Someone, somewhere is not doing their job effectively.”

The first ever FGM case was brought to trial this year, but in February the NHS doctor Dhanuson Dharmasena, 32, was acquitted in less than 30 minutes amid claims that the Crown Prosecution Service had brought the case because of political pressure.

Given the failure of the prosecution, there may be an “even greater reluctance” to report, the study said, but it urged the Royal College of GPs to give training to every doctor about FGM: “Doctors are on the front line. Their professional organisations must do more to encourage their members to report cases of FGM. Without their active reporting of these cases, the full extent of FGM will remain hidden.”

Decrying the prevalence of FGM in the UK and the lack of prosecutions, the report accused the Crown Prosecution Service, police and health professionals of playing pass the parcel.

“The DPP informed the committee that she could only prosecute on the basis of evidence, the police said that they could only investigate on the basis of referral, and the health professionals told us that they could not refer cases because their members were not fully trained and aware of the procedure,” it states. “While agencies play pass the parcel of responsibility, young girls are being mutilated every hour of every day. This is deplorable.”

The select committee welcomed the government’s decision to make reporting FGM mandatory, but said it remained unclear what would happen in the event that a professional should fail to make a report. It called on the government to set out the sanctions that would apply and establish an advisory panel of FGM campaigners, to be consulted before any major policy decisions are taken.

Equality Now, a campaign group, said the focus should not be on prosecution, but prevention.

“Mandatory reporting should go hand-in-hand with mandatory training of those professionals who have a child safeguarding obligation,” said Mary Wandia, the FGM programme manager at Equality Now. “Such training is urgently needed and is the next step. It should come before holding those people to account.”