Monday, December 17, 2007
Annals of medical ethics: Surgery for Allah
A Muslim woman gets reconstructive surgery so that her new husband can produce proof of her "virginity" to his family after their wedding night. The procedure is called a "hymenoplasty," and Britain's National Health Service actually underwrites them fairly regularly.
Now, I have no philosophical objection to aesthetic surgery, even breast enhancement. I understand the essentially political arguments against aesthetic surgery, but do not subscribe to them. In this case, though, the objective of the procedure is to deceive the husband and his relatives. The surgeon who performs the hymenoplasty is aiding and abetting marriage under false pretenses by making it possible for the woman to claim she is a virgin -- a clear requirement of the potential husband and his family -- when she is not. Why is this not fraud? And is it actually ethical to create a post-coital injury that would not have occurred in the absence of the surgery? What am I missing here?
We respectfully request your arguments pro and con.
8 Comments:
By 
Mystery Meat, at
Mon Dec 17, 10:52:00 PM:
I agree with you that hymenoplasty is perpetrating a fraud. A much surer way is clitoridectomy with infibulation. With the complete excision of the clitoris, labia minora, and most of the labia majora followed by stitching to close up most of the vagina, the prospective husband can be assured of the purity of his bride. When the husband tears out the threads on the wedding night, blood flow, and therefore family honor, is guaranteed.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Mon Dec 17, 11:14:00 PM:
TH, what were you doing when you came up with this post--reading the old sermons of Jonathan Edwards?
By TigerHawk, at
Mon Dec 17, 11:17:00 PM:
No, DEC, just wondering what a doctor was doing facilitating a fraud. At taxpayer expense, I might add.
By Denise, at
Tue Dec 18, 01:31:00 AM:
It is technically fraud, yes, but just imagine what could happen to that woman if she didn't have the procedure and wasn't a virgin (or just didn't have a hymen-- some women don't). You'd see more honor killings than you already do. I read an article (years ago, so I can't provide a link) where a doctor raised these same concerns, and nearly refused to perform the procedure until he (or she-- I don't remember which) realized that his would-be patients were terrified.
By TigerHawk, at
Tue Dec 18, 07:11:00 AM:
I agree, Denise, but it seems to me that the surgery is only enabling the oppression. The answer, from a Western perspective, is for the woman to change her religious beliefs or to marry somebody who respects her, not a fraud.
By TigerHawk, at
Tue Dec 18, 07:12:00 AM:
In any case, I was wondering whether the husband would have a cause of action against the surgeon if he learned of the fraud. I think that in the United States, at least, he would.
By Miss Ladybug, at
Tue Dec 18, 02:02:00 PM:
IMO, if the "fraud" is discovered, the remedy for the "defrauded" (at least in their view) is to murder the "fraudster". I can only imagine how difficult is would be for these oppressed Muslim women to escape their circumstances, even in a Western nation such as Great Britain. I mean, look what just happened recently in Canada with the murder of 16-year-old Aqsa Parvez - killed by her own father because she wasn't wearing the religiously required hijab. Can you imagine them doing anything less for losing her virginity without the benefit of a marriage bed?
By 
, at
Wed Dec 19, 06:20:00 PM:
Sure, it's fraud, but there's some precedent for it, even in the USA -- for example, throughout the 1950s and 1960s, the sealing of adoption records was justified on the basis that now-married women who had not told their husbands about a relinquished child needed protection from that fact becoming known. MCU
