How Canadian Law Shapes the Health Care Experiences of Women with Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting/Circumcision and Their Providers: A Disjuncture Between Expectation and Actuality

Abstract

AbstractThis study explored how the reproductive health care experiences of women with female genital mutilation/cutting/circumcision (FGC) were shaped. We used Institutional Ethnography, a sociological approach which allows for the study of social relations and the coordination of health care. From qualitatively interviewing eight women with FGC, we learned that they felt excluded within the Canadian health care system because they were unable to access reconstructive surgery, which was not covered by Ontario’s universal health coverage (Ontario Health Insurance Plan). We then talked with seven obstetricians/gynecologists (OB/GYNs) and learned that while it was legal to perform certain genital (e.g., female genital cosmetic surgery) and reproductive (e.g., elective caesarean section) surgeries commonly requested by Western-born women, it was not legal for them to perform other genital surgeries often requested by immigrant populations (e.g., reinfibulation), nor were these covered by OHIP (e.g., clitoral reconstructive surgery). From participants’ comparison of clitoral reconstructive surgery and reinfibulation to female genital cosmetic and gender confirming surgeries, it became clear that the law and policies within the health care system favored surgeries elected by Western adults over those wished for by women with FGC. We found that the law had an impact on the choices that OB/GYNs and the women they treated could make, shaping their respective experiences. This created ethical dilemmas for OB/GYNs and a sense of exclusion from the health care system for women with FGC.