The American Academy of Pediatrics:
"Recommends that its members actively seek to dissuade families from carrying out harmful forms of FGC." 26 April 2010
What does this mean?
"Most forms of FGC are decidedly harmful, and pediatricians should decline to perform them, even in the absence of any legal constraints. However, the ritual nick suggested by some pediatricians is not physically harmful and is much less extensive than routine newborn male genital cutting. There is reason to believe that offering such a compromise may build trust between hospitals and immigrant communities, save some girls from undergoing disfiguring and lifethreatening procedures in their native countries, and play a role in the eventual eradication of FGC. It might be more effective if federal and state laws enabled pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a ritual nick as a possible compromise to avoid greater harm."
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/peds.2010-0187v1.pdf
In short, the AAP recommends "ritual nicking" to those seeking FGM for their daughter.
I can and can't believe that this is happening in the West.
I can believe it because it seems a logical extension of multicultural madness.
I can't believe it because I hoped I was wrong on where this madness is leading.
But there you have it.
An association dedicated to caring for children is recommending that its practitioners harm children, as a sop to multiculturalism.
Are we going down the wrong track or is this progress?

Well it is not progress Proxy as one would assume. The only way I can see this in a positive light (positive may be the wrong word) is that it puts these practices in the hands of trained surgeons rather than backyard mutilators. But it isn't good enough - what an awful state of affairs for the child in either scenario.

Male circumcision is equally as unnecessary and has also been carried out in the West.

It is disgraceful that these practices are still condoned. I believe FGM has nothing to do with religious practices more to do with primitive partriarchies with medieval attitudes towards women's sexuality.

The sheding of blood uas required for the covering of sin. God killed an animal to provide a covering for Adam and Eve Gen 3-21. In Gen 22 God provided the lamb for the offering and instatuted the blessing to all who believe and obey. The Circumcism was initated by God to seal the covernant he made with Abraham to bless him and his decendants if they listened and obeyed in Gen 17 with the sheding of blood. In this age God has decreed a new and much better covernent with the sheding of the blood of his son Jesus. The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world so the sheding of our childrens blood is no longer required as God imparts the blessing as we believe and be baptised Mark 16-16 and Col 2-11.So childrens circumcisim in this modern age is not a requirement of God but the tradition of man and unless done for health reasons avails nothing lasting. Ps one of the ways of identifying a cult is the requirement of the sheding of blood. For God so Loved us that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. John 3-16 So if we believe and obey God cuts his covernant with us in the waters of baptism today not in a circumcism made with human hands. Impossible for man. Possible for God. God Is good Mat 19-17.

Proxy,

The suggestion that a "ritual nick" is done is not a procedure supported by the academy, rather a discussion point in extreme circumstances where the alternative is the parents taking the child back for the "authentic treatment" in their home countries.

This is a similar dilemma to:

If you could, would it be morally acceptable to kill Hitler before he rose to power?

This practice is barbaric and should be outlawed in all decent countries.
Never mind if I could kill hitler, this practice is equivalent of placing a burqua on the girls head and nailing it there.
Totally barbaric.

I have recently had a young Samoan man working for me. He is going to need some time off shortly because he is the first-born boy in his family and tradition dictates that he must submit to being tattooed - starting at his waist and continuing over every inch of skin down to his mid-thigh. It's been modified - the orginal requirement covered the full legs.

I myself was circumcised as a child.

Where is the chorus of indignation at these practises?

I suppose I have to say that I don't condone the practice of FGM or I'll have the usual mental midgets accusing me of wanting to slash clitorises all over the place. I find that quite tedious.