The role of the police in prosecuting allegations of FGM: a review of “The FGM Detectives”, a Channel 4 TV programme
18/03/2018 § Leave a comment
This was a Channel 4 TV programme, shown on 27 February 2018, reported by Cathy Newman. It was filmed over a two-year period, and depicted the failure of a British detective named Leanne Pook to bring a successful prosecution against a Somali father of a six-year-old girl for allegedly arranging for her to have FGM. The programme is supportive of the police action right to the end, yet it provides a disturbing picture of why the police and the Crown Prosecution Service have failed utterly to successfully prosecute cases of FGM. It also highlights, as have previous cases, the important role of the Crown Court judge in not allowing the trial to go forward, due to a complete lack of evidence. It shows yet again, as every attempt at prosecution in this country before it, that the involvement of the police and the criminal law is not the way to stop FGM let alone to support those who have had or may be at risk of FGM.
The programme also showed that the right to bodily integrity of the six-year-old girl believed by the police to be a victim of FGM were grossly violated by the police. The only evidence in the trial came from a passenger in her father’s taxicab, who alleged that her father had said he was not against minor forms of FGM, and that he had had that done to his daughter.
The programme opens with a contested statement and a false statement: “Thousands of British women and girls have had their vaginas deliberately mutilated.” The claim that most of those living in Britain with FGM had had FGM done to them in Britain is highly contested as there is no concrete evidence to prove it. Secondly, while FGM is indeed genital mutilation, it is practised on the external female genitalia, the clitoris and labia, and sometimes by sewing the outer edges of the vaginal opening together. There is no mutilation of the vagina. Surely, people who want to make a television documentary about an attempt to prosecute FGM should at least know what it is they are talking about.
DCI Pook, who led the investigation of the case was, in addition to being a police officer, a trustee of the local anti-FGM group in Bristol called Integrate. The taxicab passenger who made the accusation was also a member of Integrate. He reported his conversation with the driver to someone more senior at Integrate, who in turn reported it to DCI Pook. The programme describes her two-year investigation of the taxi driver, his wife and his six-year-old daughter, and their unsuccessful attempts to gather any evidence beyond the one witness’s statement to prosecute the father for FGM.
The police considered that the witness’s statement was enough for them to pursue the case. Indeed, DCI Pook was very keen, and her desire to be the first to bring a successful prosecution in this country emerged with great force during the programme, raising questions about her ability to be impartial, which were only asked after the trial collapsed.
The investigation took two years but the programme was extremely vague about why the investigation into this family should have taken two whole years. Why the police did not also seek to prosecute the mother as well as the father was also unclear, since the only other weak evidence they found was on the mother’s phone. Moreover, the programme never showed whether the investigation went beyond questioning the girl and her parents, and examining the girl physically, though one would expect other family members, neighbours and other Somali community members close to this family to be questioned. On the other hand, the programme did spend a fair amount of time in the local community showing the activities of anti-FGM campaigners, including DCI Pook.
Throughout the two years of the investigation, the girl’s parents denied ever having had anything done to their daughter, and her father denied ever making the comment that he was accused of making while driving his taxi.
The only other source of evidence, then, would have to have come from the girl herself. Investigating her took two forms: first, she was questioned by someone considered to be an expert at using drawings with children as a means of getting information from them. The girl was asked to do a drawing of her body in the hope she would recall the FGM. The belief was that since the FGM would have been traumatic, she might remember it when drawing her body and mention something about it. This did not happen, however. The expert failed to elicit any verbal or other evidence that FGM had taken place.
The second step was to get permission to examine the girl’s genitals. In order to do that, the programme reports, she must be willing, so she is interviewed at her school. Apparently, the child agrees. There is a meeting with 5 or 6 staff from the school. The child’s parents are informed but not present, nor was their permission sought. The programme gives absolutely no information about who conducted the physical examination. We learn later that some kind of equipment (unidentified) was used and that pictures were taken of her genitals. We have to assume the examiner would have had to open the child’s labia and closely examine her clitoris to find the evidence they were expecting to find.
The police were at least honest enough to tell the reporter that at some point afterwards, the little girl described the examination as disgusting, which is hardly surprising. In my opinion, the examination constituted a serious violation of her rights – not only to privacy but to be able to withhold her consent. She could not possibly have understood in advance what the examination would involve, and even if she had, how could she have refused? Adults from her school, the police, all apparently approving it, her parents sidelined, treated as criminals – all major forms of pressure. Even if she had had FGM in the past, her bodily autonomy was certainly abused here.
But that’s not how DCI Pook saw it. Her response to the girl’s reaction was that an investigation must be thorough enough that the victim is not relied upon alone for the evidence (or in this case lack of evidence). The child was in fact examined twice, we learn later, but we were not told how often she was questioned nor what the questioning covered. One of the police officers says to camera they had hoped by examining her genitals, she might remember them having been cut. DCI Pook reports that the first investigator found something that might have come from a small cut on the child’s clitoris. A detective reports that the girl had at some point been taken out of the country during school holidays, which he describes as an opportunity for her to have been cut elsewhere. No further details are given, and no evidence is offered of this being more than a supposition.
By this point in the programme, however, the lack of evidence was becoming obvious, at least to me. However, DCI Pook embraces the “small cut” idea – a tiny nick (enough to draw a drop of blood) or a pinprick – as what may have happened, and she decries the belief that this, instead of a severe or mutilating cut, should not be prosecuted. Another officer says a nick or a pinprick of any kind is still painful. Several of the male officers talk about the importance of the police protecting little girls from such abuse. By this point, I’m feeling sick in my stomach because the abuse of this child is coming entirely from the police, who are far from seeing themselves in that light.
However, in this programme about this little girl, and whether she had been subjected to any form of FGM or not, no mark or scar or other evidence whatsoever was found on her body nor did she say or imply that it had happened to her when she was questioned.
Seventeen minutes into the programme, following an advert, DCI Pook is shown to be participating in a street demonstration against FGM with women and children from Bristol and is also shown talking to a group of parents and adults, about the importance of investigating FGM. This is followed by a meeting with youth members of Integrate, where a discussion about claims that a small nick is not abuse are challenged. This shows that DCI Pook’s role as both the investigating police officer and anti-FGM advocate are completely intertwined in this investigation, with no question of a possible conflict of interest being raised. The question of the consequences for the child that the whole community knows what is happening to her and her parents is never mentioned.
It is not until later in the programme that it is reported that the initial photographs of the little girl’s genitals were sent for examination by an FGM expert. While this expert said she thinks the photos may indicate an injury, she believes they are “not good enough” as evidence and she asks to conduct her own physical investigation of the girl so that she feels 100% sure there is an injury, before she is involved in sending someone to prison. Hence, and the timeline here is totally unclear, it was agreed that a second physical examination of the child would be carried out by this expert, who again was not identified in the programme, and whose credentials are therefore unknown.
One of the male police officers is unhappy about a second examination because the first examination was unpleasant for the child, and this upsets him. Even so, and for reasons best known to themselves, the police decide it is time to arrest the parents, take them into the station and question them separately. Were they not questioned before the child was examined? We don’t know.
More than half a dozen police officers dressed in jeans and t-shirts, not in uniform so as “not to upset the community” set off to the family home. Unfortunately, the parents are not at home so they are asked to attend the police station, and they are arrested there. Their home is searched by a police team in their absence. The father, it is reported, is questioned through an interpreter. That implies that his English may not have been good enough to have understood the conversation in his taxi that led to all of this in the first place. The reporter does not mention this, however, although in a trial in London in 2015, in which another Somali man was accused of asking for his wife to be re-sewn up following delivery of a baby, he too needed an interpreter to be questioned in court and he was acquitted in part due to the probability that his English in the delivery room was misunderstood.
During questioning, the father denies there had been any FGM or any intention of FGM, and he denies ever having had the conversation with the Integrate team member in his taxi. The police officer questioning him says to him that the examination of his daughter had indicated an injury and that the expert who examined the photographs had also seen an injury. Both of these claims are patently false. The mother is also told an injury had been identified. She reads out a prepared statement that she is opposed to FGM, and she refuses to answer any questions. We are never told whether the parents had any legal advice. Had it been my programme, I would certainly have wanted to interview the lawyer on behalf of the parents.
Meanwhile, between each of these bits of filming, there are continuous shots of traffic on Bristol’s roads, with DCI Pook driving her car and talking to the camera… often with tense music playing to create a mood, which is totally out of place.
The search of the family home yields half a dozen plastic bags full of papers, but the only possibly incriminating item found is a phone number on a small bit of paper stuck behind a picture hanging on a wall. The phone number turns out to be the father’s phone number, however, not incriminating at all. How disappointing. But two of the police officers agree that if you hide something behind a picture frame like that, it is usually incriminating in some way. DCI Pook is not discouraged though. She explains that you rarely get one big piece of evidence in a case, as happens on TV. So they are cracking on.
It’s time for the second examination of the girl’s genitals, by the expert. This examination found her genitals to be completely intact, with no evidence of an injury or FGM. We learn this indirectly through hearing DCI Pook answering the phone call from the expert, who appears to be apologising for disappointing her, and we hear DCI Pook say in a very disappointed voice that it was OK, never mind, the expert was just doing her job.
After she hangs up the phone, DCI Pook doesn’t say: “Isn’t it wonderful that this little girl has no evidence of any injury!” No, she says this news is a disaster for the police, and one of her male officers agrees. It seems they really wanted this little girl to have had FGM. DCI Pook looks at the camera and says: “This is a hammer blow to our case… I’m disappointed because I think we won’t get justice for this little girl.”
Oh, so she remains convinced that FGM has happened to this child! She tells us the expert’s written report of her examination states that no evidence may indicate that any injury may have healed.
So she’s good to go again, though she needs to find something to “strengthen the case”. The girl’s mother’s cellphone provides it. They find a text and a phone number of a man whom the mother says has recently circumcised one of her sons. When she is asked if she has also had her daughter circumcised, she says “No comment”. Of course, on television, if someone says “No comment” instead of yes or no, the assumption is that it is because they are guilty. Does this prove anything though? No. The extent of the mother’s English is unstated. The father’s, heard only very briefly, seems limited when we hear a recording of him saying the man on the phone could do both girls and boys but he was contacted by them about a boy. The programme does not report whether the couple’s son is examined for recent circumcision or not, surely an extraordinary omission. Nor does it say whether the alleged circumciser, whose evidence should surely have been key in this case, was found and interviewed. Even more extraordinary.
At this point in the programme, we learn that “the evidence” has been submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to see if it is enough for criminal charges to be brought. After more speeded up Bristol footage, of boats on the river this time, and to increasingly loud tense music, we learn that the CPS has given permission for a charge of child cruelty against the father to be brought, for “allowing or arranging for [the child] to have FGM”, and for the father to be arrested and charged. If found guilty, we are told, he faces up to 10 years in prison.
When the court date is set, DCI Pook tells the camera, some of the Somali community have been heard to say they may organise a protest. Who has reported this to her is unstated, but the implication is that someone has been monitoring the Somali community’s response and reporting it to the police. DCI Pook expresses concern that her witness, the Integrate member from the taxi, may be threatened, and she is shown talking to him on the phone to get reassurance that this has not in fact happened.
The next stage covered by the programme, but far too briefly, is when the Bristol Crown Court hears the evidence. The courtroom is packed, mainly DCI Pook thinks, with journalists, which to her indicates the importance of the case. However, the outcome is not at all what she is looking for. On what seems to be the very first morning, after a late start, the judge questions inconsistencies in the main witness’s statement and the evidence is described as “beginning to unravel”. The judge concludes that on the basis of the evidence, he would direct the jury to acquit the defendant. The reporter tells us that the judge found the evidence deeply troubling and “wholly inconclusive at the highest”. She reports that the judge states the equipment used to exam the little girl the first time was 15 years out of date and that the photographs taken at that time were so blurry as to be of no use clinically or forensically as evidence. The main witness, though honest, he believes had been influenced by his role in the charity Integrate. The CPS accepts the judge’s decision, but they also say they thought there had been sufficient evidence to prosecute and that it was in the public interest.
So, total self-justification all around. Thank heavens for the competence of judges. The reporter then returns to DCI Pook, who claims this is all part of the job, shows her justifying herself to the media, and as regards the lack of evidence: “There were some evidential difficulties, we never denied that…” she says. She remains firm that in spite of the negative impact on the family and the community, the police had a job to do and they did it. She says they have children to protect and that’s what they were doing. But were they, in this case? I don’t think so.
As DCI Pook walks away from the camera, the reporter says the police have had difficulty prosecuting because young victims keep silent. This raises the unspoken question of whether children who have had FGM actually want their parents to be sent to prison for ten years. Moreover, it is not true that young victims are keeping silent. They have spoken out all over the country. Yet it seems that no one involved in this case or in making this programme thinks it is even remotely possible that the child concerned had never had FGM, in spite of the judge’s unequivocal assessment, which the programme corroborates in spite of itself.
The CPS also seems to have learned nothing from previous failures to find anyone guilty, in terms of how much evidence is enough for them to agree someone should be taken to court. Thus, the programme closes with a report that yet another FGM case is due to be heard in London this month.
What is the best way to address FGM in the UK? The question in my opinion remains unanswered.
See my previous writing on this issue:
The history and role of the criminal law in anti-FGM campaigns: Is the criminal law what is needed, at least in countries like Great Britain? Reproductive Health Matters 2015;23:145-157. Doi: 10.1016/j.rhm.2015.10.001
Acquittals in the FGM case in London: justice was done and was seen to be done, but what now? Berer Blog, 10 February 2015.
Reflections on the recent arrest in London of two people for female genital mutilation (FGM). Berer Blog, 14 April 2014.
04/03/2018 § Leave a comment
The article “Sex workers in Haiti speak out on aid agency scandal” (1 March 2018, p.41) is very poor journalism in that it mixes together issues that don’t belong together. Firstly, while it points out that poverty and loss of family in Haiti left many women with no option but to sell sex for a living, this is not a new problem for poor women in Haiti, and it certainly did not start with the 2010 earthquake, let alone with the arrival of aid workers. Secondly, aid workers have been working in Haiti for decades.
Thirdly, the article appears to make the assumption that aid workers, who may spend years in a country, have no right to have sex – with anyone – while they are there. Indeed, the first half of the article is only about the fact that some aid workers are having sex with sex workers and paying above the national rate for it. This is not at all what this scandal is about.
Only after four columns of text does the article finally mention what the headline says it is about – that some “foreign workers” have been seen to ask for sex in exchange for supplies, and that a 2015 UN report found that “members of its peacekeeping mission in Haiti traded sex for aid with more than 225 women between 2008 and 2014”. Is this new news from this journalist? No.
After that, the article does not present any new evidence of this abuse of power. Instead, it reports that selling sex is illegal in Haiti and describes some personal experiences of sex workers that are unremarkable and irrelevant to the scandal. There is not one word more on whether staff of aid agencies in Haiti are abusing their power by trading supplies for sex, nor if so, how many, when or where. Yet the future of Oxfam and other aid agencies hangs in the balance. In the absence of actual evidence, the headline is false and misleading, and the article should never have been published.
Response to “Progesterone for preventing pregnancy termination after initiation of medical abortion with mifepristone”: what’s the real point here?
22/02/2018 § Leave a comment
Letter to the Editor of the European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care, by Marge Berer
Received 04 Jan 2018, Accepted 23 Jan 2018, Published online: 19 Feb 2018
In your recently published article “Progesterone for preventing pregnancy termination after initiation of medical abortion with mifepristone”,  the cases of three women who changed their minds about going through with an abortion after taking the mifepristone pill are presented with the aim of encouraging further research as to whether progesterone treatment is effective in reversing the effects of the mifepristone. Interest in the topic has arisen among people who appear to be anti-abortion and whose main purpose appears to be to find a clinical means to stop abortions already in process from taking place. In focusing on efforts to rescue the embryo, however, the authors, the editors and the reviewers all ignored the pregnant women and the reasons for their actions in this situation as well as the behaviour of the health care professionals.
What is striking about all three of the cases described is how quickly, and in two of the three cases, how immediately the women changed their minds and sought “reversal” of the mifepristone. This raises two quite different sets of questions about the behaviour of the health professionals involved that the report does not consider or answer. Firstly, were the providers of the pills not aware of what must have been quite serious ambivalence and conflicting feelings about the abortion in these women, and if not, why not? Surely it is part of their professional remit to ask the woman if she is sure of her decision, and if she is uncertain, advise her to wait to take the pills until she is sure. Secondly, did those same health professionals while they were handing over the pills say or do anything to upset the women, such as condemning them for seeking abortion or showing them their scan or nasty visuals of chopped up fetuses, as anti-abortion people often try to do, in order to discourage them from going ahead, which then led them to change their minds so abruptly?
And what about the women concerned? It is well known that a proportion of women who make a clinic appointment for a surgical/aspiration abortion do not turn up for the procedure because they have changed their minds, and that they may or may not return later. I well recall a now retired Ob-Gyn in the UK saying the proportion was around 10%, though that was many years ago.
In any case, in whatever the proportion of women who do so, wavering and a change of mind about whether to continue or end an unplanned pregnancy is not uncommon and may happen more than once in both directions before a woman ever seeks an appointment. Hence, I would argue that there is a far better way to address the fact that some women may change their minds, which takes into account all the women who opt for medical abortion pills to end a pregnancy. The fact is, women have a right to feel ambivalent and change their minds, and they should therefore be in complete control over whether and when they take the pills – instead of having to take them in front of a health professional at the health professional’s convenience.
In other words, all women opting for medical abortion should be able to use both the mifepristone and the misoprostol pills at home, in their own time, where they can change their minds (or not) as often as they need to, and only use the pills (or not) when they are sure of their decision. Then the search for an antidote to mifepristone would be unnecessary.
The publication of this article also raises issues about the role of editorial and peer review in the face of anti-abortion efforts to dress up their political aims as science. The authors of the paper should not have been allowed to ignore the situation of the women whose histories it presents, or the reasons for their change of mind, or what role the providers of the pills might have played in their doing so and in supplying the progesterone. Allowing these crucial aspects to be ignored was a failure of the editorial and peer review process and resulted in giving the paper the credibility of scientific publication when its underlying aim was to promote a way to stop abortions.
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
- Garratt D, Turer JV. Progesterone for preventing pregnancy termination after initiation of medical abortion with mifepristone. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2017;22:472–475.
18/06/2017 § Leave a comment
This is a special edition of the HHRJ Journal on one of the key topics of the Campaign – abortion law and policy and the value of human rights in seeking to improve policy and practice. Being one of the three guest editors for this edition has been an important part of my Campaign work for the past year. I hope you find the papers valuable. Marge
le of contents and all papers are at:
All the papers are open access.
I especially recommend the following papers:
DISCUSSION Abortion Law and Policy Around the World: In Search of Decriminalization Marge Berer HTML | PDF
Regulation of Conscientious Objection to Abortion: An International Comparative Multiple-Case Study
Wendy Chavkin, Laurel Swerdlow, and Jocelyn Fifield HTML | PDF
Pregnancy and the 40-Year Prison Sentence: How “Abortion is Murder” Became Institutionalized in the Salvadoran Judicial System
Jocelyn Viterna and Jose Santos Guardado Bautista
HTML | PDF
Pregnancies and Fetal Anomalies Incompatible with Life in Chile: Arguments and Experiences in Advocating for Legal Reform
Lidia Casas and Lieta Vivaldi
HTML | PDF
Legal Knowledge as a Tool for Social Change: La Mesa por la Vida y la Salud de las Mujeres as an Expert on Colombian Abortion Law
Ana Cristina González Vélez and Isabel Cristina Jaramillo
HTML | PDF
Macro- and Micro-Political Vernaculizations of Rights: Human Rights and Abortion Discourses in Northern Ireland
Claire Pierson and Fiona Bloomer
HTML | PDF
PERSPECTIVE Abortion Care in Nepal, 15 Years after Legalization: Gaps in Access, Equity, and Quality
Wan-Ju Wu, Sheela Maru, Kiran Regmi, and Indira Basnett
HTML | PDF
10/06/2017 § Leave a comment
When open access journals first came onto the scene, I was really worried about the various ways they would change the journal publication landscape and practice. More importantly than anything else, I felt it was unfair and inequitable to charge authors to have their papers published so that I, as a reader, could get access to them free. On the other hand, I have grown to like the idea a great deal, in that I began to feel entitled to access to articles and annoyed when I couldn’t get them. And there are some journals, I have no idea how many, that waive the open access fee for a certain number of global south authors so as not to exclude them from publishing. But I remain concerned that this will only be available to a few and that all the work that was done to open the door to publication to them will be undone as more seek a waiver.
To address the threat to equity of access for global south and individual authors, the compromise we negotiated with Elsevier for RHM when I was still the editor was a decent one – articles were behind a subscription paywall for one year, and then became open access. The journal paid for publication and for subscriptions for its global south readers, who were the great majority of readers, while authors did not have to pay. This meant both that authors who could not afford the open access fees would not be discriminated against nor would they lose the opportunity to publish, while readers too got access, including those who could not or would not pay the subscription, even if it took a year. But this was an unusual deal and as far as I know, it has not been much replicated.
What I did not expect, but what has taken place to an alarming extent, is that open access has become big business. Apparently bogus journals are seeking to fleece unsuspecting authors of their money by offering to publish their work. If what comes into my inbox and my spam box is any indication, such journals have been launched by the cartload. I am being bombarded on an almost daily basis with requests to publish with one journal or another by submitting a paper. Some of these emails are addressed to me personally and mention a paper I have published previously as the source of their knowledge of me. Others are generic. Still others invite me to review a paper or attend a conference or to serve on a committee for a conference, and some try to sell me scientific equipment of one kind or another. I presume my address is being shared widely to make this happen. Apart from titles that have something to do with women’s sexual and reproductive health, or more commonly obstetrics & gynaecology, the rest, while mostly in the health and medical field, are totally inappropriate for me, as their subject is one I know nothing about. What I find most shocking, however, is that some of them are written in absolutely appalling English. Who they think they are kidding, I don’t know.
In September 2016, I began to collect these emails in a folder, planning to write a blog about them as a scam. I never got around to it until now, so they have piled up since then. They are in my inbox at both my email addresses and in the junk mailbox of both my email addresses. There are hundreds of them. I decided to list them here to show how absurd this has become, or should I say appalling. Many have written more than once, and some, when I do not reply, write again and push me to respond.
Here are several examples:
- Dear Dr. Marge Berer,
How are you? I hope you are healthy and happy. The Merry Christmas Grand Celebration is very keen, for the rewarding start of this special event, I need one praiseworthy manuscript. I realize that best fit manuscript is your transcript only. Hence, I feel honored to invite you for your manuscript submission and I am confident that my expectations on your works will help me to rejoice this event.
I hope to cheer this occasion with your legendary article. Await your reply.
Best Regards, B…G… Journal of Gynecology and Women’s Health (JGWH) 14/12/16
2. Distinguished Dr. Marge Berer,
I recently came across your work titled “The history and role of the criminal law in anti-FGM campaigns: Is the criminal law what is needed, at least in countries like Great Britain?”. As far as I understood, it has been written at the -. Following this, the editorial team of Omniscriptum Publishing Group reaches out to you with a free of charge publishing offer. Briefly speaking, we invite you to publish this work as an independent printed book which will be listed by major libraries and online bookstores. Could you please let us know your thoughts regarding this opportunity? If you would like we can discuss the next steps. I would be happy to answer any questions. 3.
3. …It would be appreciated, if you submit on or before 26thMarch, 2017. If you submit, we will process and publish within 21 days followed by rapid peer review process…
4. Dear Colleague,
Happy International Women’s Day. It’s always been a pleasure and privilege to work with so many female researchers. On the occasion of Women’s Day, Clinical Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine (COGRM) is providing special concession on the publication fee until 24th March, 2017. Articles submitted before the mentioned date will be published (if accepted after peer-review process) with processing fee of USD 300 instead of USD 890. COGRM follows rapid peer review from the experts throughout the world, which helps us to publish an article within 7-10 days of submission.
Here is a list of all the supposed journals and conferences I have heard from so far (with the number of times an email has been received, e.g. x 4):
Reproductive Immunology x 4
SM Tropical Medicine Journal
SM Journal of Community Medicine
Annals of Community Medicine and Practice
Journal of Neonatal Biology
Austin Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology x 2
Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics x 2
Global Journal of Medical Research
Trauma and Emergency Care
Journal of Forensic Psychology
Global Women’s Health x 2
HSOA Journal of Reproductive Medicine, Gynaecology & Obstetrics
General Practice 2016
Journal of Family Medicine
Journal of Psychology & Psychotherapy
Andrology & Gynecology: Current Research
Sexual Medicine: Annals of Clinical Case Reports
2016 5th EEM International Conference on Hospitality, Leisure, Sport, Tourism & Education
Family Nursing 2017
Breast Cancer 2017
Journal of Gynecology & Neonatal Biology
Science can be Beautiful
Journal of Nursing & Women’s Healthcare
Reproductive Immunology: Open Access x 3
Hospital Management 2016
Journal of Women’s Health, Issues and Care x 2
Journal of Community and Public Health Nursing x 2
Mental Health 2017 x 2
Nursing Education 2017
Apps Store Now India Development Company
Journal of Modern Physics
Family Practice Special Issue
Mathews Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics x 2
Applied Psychology 2017
Call for Participation to the 2nd International Conference on Medicine and Natural Sciences, Albania
5th International Congress of Gynaecology and Obstetrics
Translational Reproductive Biology And Clinical Reproductive Endocrinology
Journal of Gynecology and Women’s Health
International Journal of Reproductive BioMedicine
Journal of Environmental Protection x 2
Forensic Science and Criminology x 2
Journal of Pregnancy and Child Health x 3
Journal of Gynecology and Women’s Health x 5
EC Gynaecology Journal x 2
Journal of Sexual and Reproductive Medicine
Journal of Reproduction and Infertility
Functional Food Centre (repeatedly)
Health x 2
Special Issue: “Current Research on Safety and Environment”/ The selected papers will be submitted to the Elsevier: “Journal of Chemical Health and Safety” x 6
Journal of Pregnancy & Child Health x 2
Acta Psychopathologica x 2
Journal of Fertilization: In Vitro
Obstetrics & Gynecology International Journal x 3
Gynecology and Womens Health Research x 3
Midwifery Congress 2017 x 2
Pregnancy & Child Health
Journal of Traumatic Stress Disorders & Treatment x 3
Diana – ProteoGenix
Reproductive Medicine 2017 x 4
Public Health 2017
Internal Medicine Review
Gynecology and Obstetrics Research – Open Journal x 2
Trauma and Critical Care 2017
Open Access Journal of Urology & Nephrology (OAJUN)
25th World Congress on Controversies in Obstetrics, Gynecology & Infertility (COGI)
International Conference on Obesity and Diabetes
Reproductive System & Sexual Disorders International Journal
The 4th International Congress of Forensics & Police Tech Expo-2017
Journal of Women’s Healthcare and Wellness
Women’s Health & Gynecology
Women’s Health Bulletin
Women’s Health – Open Journal
Global Biotechnology Congress 2017
Austin Public Health
JSM Sexual Medicine
EC Gynaecology x 3
Global Conference on Nursing and Healthcare
Annals of Clinical Case Reports
SOJ Gynecology, Obstetrics & Women’s Health
Thinkers Hub Conferences
Journal of Reproductive Endocrinology & Infertility x 3
Peer Reviewed Academia Sciences
The Scientific Pages of Anthropology
Journal of Psychology & Psychotherapy
Journal of Drug Abuse
Pregnancy & Child Health Journal x 2
Forensic Science-2017 x 3
Sociology and Anthropology
World Nursing and Healthcare conference
Clinical Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine
Reproductive Immunology: Open Access
Innovate Nursing 2017
Journal of Women’s Health and Gynecology x 6
Journal of Community and Public Health Nursing
Plastic Surgery: Clinics in Surgery
Journal of AIDS & Clinical Research x 2
Drug Discovery & Therapy World Congress 2017
Journal of Addiction Research & Therapy
Juniper Online Journal of Public Health
Journal of Forensic Toxicology & Pharmacology
Sanaz – ProteoGenix
NEW Cyagen and Vectorbuilder Newsletter x 2
HIV Scientific meeting
Agriculture & Food, 5th International Conference 2017 x 2
Reproductive System & Sexual Disorders International Journal x 4
Journal of General Practice
Breast Pathology 2017 x 2
Women’s Health (Sage) x 3
Journal of Nursing
World Conference on Science, Technology & Medicine x 2
Surgical Nursing 2017
Nurse Practitioner 2017
Stockholm Nursing Conference
Healthcare Asiapacific 2017
Open Access Journal of Urology & Nephrology x 2
Maternity Complications and Women’s Health Journal x 3
Archives of Medicine x 2
Journal of Family Medicine & Community Health x 2
Annals of Men’s Health and Wellness x 2
Journal of Women’s Health Care
Andrology and Gynecology Reports
Pharma-2017 x 2
Dr. Sanchita Roy (email@example.com)
Dr. Sarmila Das (firstname.lastname@example.org)
AIDS Clinical Research & STDs
Journal of Forensic Psychology x 2
Annual Summit on Sexual & Reproductive Health, Oncology & Medicine x 2
Dr. Kateryna Bielka, M.D. email@example.com x 2
International Journal of Surgery Research and Practice
Journal of Psychology and Brain Studies
Social Sciences 2017
Forensic Research 2017
Family Medicine 2017 x 2
Journal of Psychiatry
Ms Aloka Jana (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Journal of Medical Implants and Surgery
Journal of Research and Development
Neonatal Nursing 2017
Journal of Forensic Research
International Conference on Women’s Health, Gynecology & Obstetrics x 2
Journal of Basic and Clinical Reproductive Scienc
Women’s Health Research
Sexual and Reproductive Health 2017
Euro Primary Care 2017 x 2
Journal of Gynecology and Women’s Health
Austin Journal of Civil & Legal Sciences
Medical & Clinical Reviews
Euro Midwifery-2017 x 3
Journal of Surgery
Public Health Congress
Forensic Congress 2017
Journal of Endocrinology and Diabetes
Insights in Reproductive Medicine
Journal of Sexual & Reproductive Medicine
InTechOpen invites you to write a chapter for a new Open Access book project “Family Planning,” edited by Dr. Zouhair O. Amarin.
Journal of Basic and Clinical Reproductive Science
Journal of Genital System & Disorders
Clinical Practice (Therapy)
Advances in Journalism and Communication
Journal of Family Medicine and Disease Prevention
Oral Presentations for Scientists
Whew!!! I have no idea what to do about this, but it feels like a permanent invasion of my territory and a form of e-trash being dumped on me. I have no idea who to complain to, nor how to stop them coming but will share this blog with the European Association of Science Editors to see if they have some advice or want to let others know this is happening.
16/01/2017 § Leave a comment
Dear Belfast Telegraph,
RE: Suicide risk to woman accused of using poison to have abortion, court hears, by Alan Erwin, 11/01/2017
I find it quaint that you describe the medical abortion pills mifepristone + misoprostol as “poison” in your articles about prosecutions of Northern Irish women, and now a couple, who have used them to induce an abortion. I’m curious to know how often and on what other subjects you adopt such an archaic and inaccurate 19th century term to describe something that is happening today in an entirely new and safe way.
In the 19th century, when the 1861 Offences against the Person Act was passed, covering a wide range of violent crimes, it included as a crime dangerous abortions for which actual poisonous substances were used in desperation, and did kill or injure women. For that time, and those substances, the term was accurate and made sense.
But now, more than 150 years later, we are talking about two medications developed by a bona fide pharmaceutical company, researched in depth over many years since the early 1980s by scientists working with the World Health Organization, who determined the safest and most effective doses and regimens for both medications, both when used together or with misoprostol alone. Placed on the WHO Essential Medicines list. Approved by almost all governments who allow legal abortions. And even being used in Scandinavia almost exclusively for all abortions.
And yet you are still clinging to the term “poison”? How backward-looking! Why? You’re missing the real story here!
Yours sincerely, Marge Berer
06/01/2017 § Leave a comment
Two days ago, I published a blog that I have just deleted. The backstory involved turned out to be extremely complicated, far more complicated than I could have imagined, and having received an explanation for what happened, which was that one publication led to another that led to another and both were criticised, and then both amended their texts to try and correct problems with each of them, back and forth several times. I had only seen the two original pieces. Not unusual, probably, for newspaper and e-newsletter readers, but I wrote the blog based on the originals, and so created a problematic interpretation of my own and ended up throwing yet another flawed understanding into the pot.
I’ve decided not to try and explain the issues or comment further, so I have deleted the blog entirely. I hope those of you who read it will simply take it from me that I didn’t get it right either, and that I do not want anyone to be misled by what I said. In short, forget you ever read it. I can’t share the letter I received about the whole story, but it taught me a lot about being really careful when writing summaries of other people’s work, because they involve not just repetition of what someone else wrote but rewording of it and probably inevitably interpretation of it, and how that can go wrong when: a) a lot of people are involved, b) there isn’t necessarily evidence for everything that was said, and c) the subject is highly controversial. Whew!
If you didn’t read the blog, it’s just as well. Don’t ask!!