nuampsadmin's blog

On November 28, the United Nations’ (U.N.) human rights committee approved a resolution calling for a ban of female genital mutilation (FGM) throughout the world. The human rights committee condemned the practice as “a harmful and serious threat to the psychological, sexual, and reproductive health of women and girls.” This is the first resolution regarding this topic passed in the U.N., and its Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon believes it is a major step forward in protecting millions of women and girls (UN News Centre).
FGM is a procedure in which a girl’s clitoris, and sometimes other genital parts, are removed during early childhood or adolescence. In 2010, the U.N. estimated that about 70 million women and girls had received the procedure and the World Health Organization reported that about 6,000 girls undergo FGM every day. Some who practice FGM believe that it is required by their religion, or that by completing the procedure they can control women’s sexuality, and perhaps increase fertility. However, it has been proven that there are no health benefits to FGM, and that it leads to painful sexual intercourse, childbirth complications, and other health issues. Despite the prevalence of FGM, reconstructive procedures are not widely available. A group of French researchers and doctors have studied the effects of a type of surgery to reconstruct the clitorises of a group of women, and found that in the long term, most of the women reported either an improvement, or no change, in the amount of pain and clitoral pleasure experienced. Beatrice Cuzin, a urologist who participated in this study states that most women who undergo FGM do not have access to reconstructive surgery, and even if they do, cost is often prohibitive (Barclay, NPR).
FGM is prevalent in many African countries, but is also common in some Middle Eastern and South American communities. However, FGM education and reform should not just be limited to these regions because it is often practiced in diaspora communities all over the world, including the United States. For more detailed information on its prevalence and on efforts to prevent it, the United Nations Population Fund offers additional resources.
It is likely that the full U.N. General Assembly, which consists of 193 member states, will take up this issue in the second half of December, and it is nearly certain that it will be passed. While an approval wouldn’t result in any legal ramifications, U.N. resolutions carry significant moral and political weight, and it would send a strong message to the international community. The resolution condemns the practice and calls for states to create and promote educational campaigns for both men and women to teach them about the negative effects of the practice in an effort to eliminate it. It also encourages countries to enact legislation that prohibits FGM and ends leniency for those who practice it (Lederer, The Associated Press).
 

The recent tragedy at the elementary school in Connecticut is beyond horrible and our hearts reach out to the families who lost their innocent children and friends.  Though I am not a supporter of guns and would never own one, I acknowledge that the U.S.  Constitutional gives us the legal right to ‘bear arms’ in this country but struggle with the interpretation of the law.
My family includes members who like to hunt but the animals they kill are always used for food.  I live in a large city and understand why some individuals who are at risk in high-crime areas may want a gun in their home for personal safety as long as they are licensed and well-trained.   What I don’t understand is why anyone, other than military and police personnel,  would ever need an automatic or semi-automatic assault weapon!   Do you think the authors of the Constitution ever imagined the types of weapons that would replace muskets, bayonets and pistols?  Gun control does not necessarily mean NO guns, but it can provide an intelligent framework for insuring access to those who are trained properly and have appropriate reasons for ownership.

The relative risks of thrombotic stroke and myocardial infarction (MI) are higher among users of hormonal contraception, although absolute risks remain low, a Danish study conducted at Copenhagen University  showed.
Use of oral contraceptives combining low-to-moderate doses of ethinyl estradiol and various progestins was associated with up to 2.3 times the risks of thrombotic stroke or MI compared with non-use.The type of progestin in the pill had little effect on the risks, the researchers reported in the June 14 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.
To put the risk in perspective, they estimated that among 10,000 women taking a pill combining desogestrel with ethinyl estradiol at a dose of 20 μg for 1 year, two will have arterial thrombosis and seven will have venous thrombosis.
“Although venous thrombosis is three to four times as frequent as arterial thrombosis among young women, the latter is associated with higher mortality and more serious consequences for the survivors,” they wrote. “Therefore, these figures should be taken into account when prescribing hormonal contraception.”
Several previous studies have examined the relationship between hormonal contraceptive use and the risk of venous thromboembolism. But fewer have looked at arterial complications like thrombotic stroke and MI, and the results have been mixed.
In an accompanying editorial, Diana Petitti, MD, MPH, of Arizona State University in Tempe, said that the absolute increases in the risks of thrombotic stroke and MI observed in the study were small.”None of the hormonal contraceptives studied … were associated with an excess risk of stroke that was unacceptable, considering their contraceptive and noncontraceptive benefits,” she wrote.
And, she added, evidence from previous studies “shows that the small risk could be minimized and perhaps eliminated by abstinence from smoking and by checking blood pressure, with avoidance of hormonal contraceptive use if blood pressure is raised.”
The researchers acknowledged the study was limited by possible diagnostic misclassification, the potential for a time lag between the date of prescription and when the contraceptives were started, the lack of information on body mass index, and the incomplete information on smoking status.
Source reference:
Lidegaard Ø, et al “Thrombotic stroke and myocardial infarction with hormonal contraception” N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 2257-2566.

On Monday, former Secretary of State and retired Gen. Colin Powell and dozens of other military leaders urged Congress to support abortion coverage for servicewomen in cases of rape and incest, ABC News’ “The Note” reports.
The Senate last week unanimously passed a Department of Defense authorization bill (S 3254) that includes an amendment by Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) that would allow the military’s health plan to cover abortion in those cases (Miller, “The Note,” ABC News, 12/10).
In a letter addressed to the heads and ranking members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), the military leaders wrote, “Unlike other current federal restrictions on abortion coverage, the military ban provides no exception for cases of rape and incest,” adding that the current policy is “unfair and must be changed.”
The letter continued that “servicewomen commit their lives to defending our freedoms” and urged lawmakers to “respect their service and sacrifice and provide them with the same level of health care coverage it provides civilians.”
The legislation is before a bipartisan conference committee, which will determine whether the amendment is included in the final version of the legislation. Three of the four top members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees support the amendment (Bassett, Huffington Post, 12/10).