Skip to main content
Log in

Commentary

Circumcision and circumvention. Female circumcision and social-moral dissensus in pluralistic environments

  • Feature
  • Reviews
  • Published:
Health Care Analysis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References and Notes

  1. Briggs, L.A. (1998). Female circumcision in Nigeria: is it not time for government intervention?Health Care Analysis 6(1), 14–23.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Lane, S.D. and Rubinstein, R.A. (1996). Judging the other: responding to traditional female genital surgeries.Hastings Center Report 24(3), 31–40.

    Google Scholar 

  3. The Social-moral literature on multiculturalism is rapidly growing. A recent provocative text which explicitly addresses the challenges posed to liberal society by non-liberal minorities is: Kymlicka, W. (1995).Multicultural Citizenship. A Liberal. Theory Of Minority Rights, Open University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Editor’s Note: This article is a commentary on a paper published in Vol. 6, No. 1 ofHealth Care Analysis [1]. There was insufficient room for it in that issue. It is included in the present Reviews section because it neatly summarises many of the features of the ‘female circumcision/genital mutilation debate’. Interested readers are welcome to make further contributions on this matter.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

van Heteren, G. Commentary. Health Care Anal 6, 163–166 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02678122

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02678122

Keywords

Navigation