We need better data on FGM, not propaganda | Letters

Professor Alison Macfarlane (Letters, 28 July) articulates statistical concerns regarding the Enhanced FGM Data Collection annual report and highlights misrepresentation of these flawed data by media. According to the report, the aim of these data is “to help the drive to eradicate the practice, and to provide services and support for women and girls who have had FGM”. A year on, it is evident that, despite claims made about the usefulness of the data, they are not fit for purpose. Collecting data at the point of encounters with clinicians is a futile way of collecting data about the population. It has previously been estimated that around 134,600 women with FGM live in England. The Enhanced Dataset collects data about 1% of these women each quarter. It is unclear how the data collected can be used to achieve the stated aims.

Patients disclose sensitive information when a safe, confidential space is created. It can take years for women with FGM to seek medical help. Clinicians are concerned that mandatory collection of confidential information without consent will damage trust in the doctor-patient relationship and discourage women with FGM from seeking medical attention. Separate and detailed data collection systems do not exist in other areas such as domestic abuse and rape. Let’s stop sensationalist headlines. Let’s recognise the limitations of this uninterpretable data collection and question whether the wider cost can be justified; and push for better data rather than peddle propaganda. Failure to do so risks setting back the many commendable efforts to tackle FGM in the UK.
Dr Brenda Kelly
Consultant obstetrician, Director of Oxford Rose (specialist FGM) Clinic, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford

• As a midwife and founder of the Female Genital Mutilation Clinical Group, I read with interest the response from Professor Alison Macfarlane. Professor Macfarlane correctly draws attention to the misleading wording from the report on Health and Social Care Information Centre’s statistics (First annual FGM statistics show 5,700 new cases across England, 22 July) that should have said 5,700 newly recorded cases of women and girls with FGM. But that is still 5,700 newly recorded cases too many. For the first time, we are starting to record the number of girls and women living in the UK whose lives have been damaged by this abhorrent procedure. The FGM Clinical Group campaigned for the recording of FGM in women and girls living in the UK. FGM is not legal in the UK and, as clinicians, we are trying to support and protect vulnerable women and girls who have had their lives and wellbeing damaged by the procedure. I applaud and support the recording and reporting of FGM as it allows us to start to address the issue. I agree with Professor Macfarlane that we need to be able to plan and commission proper health services and support for women and girls affected by FGM, but we are in danger of missing the point and wasting time if we quibble about the precise numbers and details. It does not matter where or when the woman or girl was mutilated – she needs our help, support and protection now.
Yana Richens
Midwife; co-editor-in-chief, British Journal of Midwifery; co-founder, FGM National Clinical Group

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

We need better data on FGM, not propaganda | Letters