Premium
Conducting an asylum evaluation focused on female genital mutilation/cutting status or risk
Author(s) -
Mishori Ranit,
Ottenheimer Deborah,
Morris Elise
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
international journal of gynecology and obstetrics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.895
H-Index - 97
eISSN - 1879-3479
pISSN - 0020-7292
DOI - 10.1002/ijgo.13428
Subject(s) - medicine , female circumcision , context (archaeology) , population , informed consent , family medicine , psychiatry , gynecology , alternative medicine , environmental health , pathology , paleontology , biology
Background Female genital mutilation or cutting (FGM/C) is considered a human rights violation and is practiced all over the world. It has been used as a basis for seeking asylum in various countries, including in the USA since 1996, and the precedent‐setting matter of Kissindja. Clinicians in the USA and elsewhere who perform asylum evaluations may be called upon to evaluate women who seek asylum based on their FGM/C status or risk. In this manuscript, we provide expert‐informed best practices to conduct asylum evaluations based specifically on FGM/C. We review evidence‐based history taking, physical examination unique to the population of women and girls affected by FGM/C, and consider the evaluation in the context of trauma‐informed care. Conclusion Although general clinical skills often suffice to perform asylum evaluations, FGM/C represents a unique niche within the field of gynecological asylum evaluations and requires additional background knowledge and clinical competencies. Ethical approval As this is a clinical review and does not involve patients or research subjects no ethical approval was sought or was necessary.