Conducting an asylum evaluation focused on female genital mutilation/cutting status or risk. Issue 1 (22nd December 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Mishori, Ranit; Ottenheimer, Deborah; Morris, Elise
• Is Part Of: International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics. Volume 153:Issue 1(2021)
• Page Start: 3
• Page End: 10
• Publication Date: 2020-12-22
• Subjects: Asylum evaluations -- Asylum seekers -- Female genital mutilation/cutting -- Human rights -- Immigrants -- Medico‐legal medicine -- Violence against women; Gynecology -- Periodicals; Obstetrics -- Periodicals; Electronic journals; 618
• DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.13428
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0020-7292

Abstract

Abstract: 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. Abstract : FGM/C is a human rights violation, used globally as a basis for asylum. We provide expert‐informed best practices for asylum evaluations based on FGM/C.