Human Rights in Hospitals: an End to Routine Shackling.

Medical students (NSB, NM, JDW) spearheaded revision of the policy and clinical practice for shackling incarcerated patients at Boston Medical Center (BMC), the largest safety net hospital in New England. In American hospitals, routine shackling of incarcerated patients with metal restraints is widespread-except for perinatal patients-regardless of consciousness, mobility, illness severity, or age. The modified policy includes individualized assessments and allows incarcerated patients to be unshackled if they meet defined criteria. The students also formed the Stop Shackling Patients Coalition (SSP Coalition) of clinicians, public health practitioners, human rights advocates, and community members determined to humanize the inpatient treatment of incarcerated patients. Changes pioneered at BMC led the Mass General Brigham health system to follow suit. The Massachusetts Medical Society adopted a resolution authored by the SSP Coalition, which condemned universal shackling and advocated for use of the least restrictive alternative. This will be presented to the American Medical Association in June 2024. The Coalition led a similar effort to coauthor a policy statement on the issue, which was formally adopted by the American Public Health Association in November 2023. Most importantly, in an unprecedented human rights victory, a BMC patient who was incarcerated, sedated, and intubated was unshackled by correctional officers for the purpose of preserving human dignity.

Forensic evaluation of alleged wrist restraint/handcuff injuries in survivors of torture utilizing the Istanbul Protocol.

Despite being a common form of abuse, there is a paucity of literature describing shackling and wrist restraint injuries among survivors of torture. Forensic evaluation of alleged wrist restraint/handcuff injuries in survivors of torture presents challenges to the evaluator, especially if the injuries are remote and do not leave lasting marks nor neurologic deficits. Thorough history-taking and physical examination are critical to effective forensic documentation. Guidance is provided in The Manual on Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Istanbul Protocol), the gold standard for the medicolegal documentation of torture. This guidance relies primarily on physical findings, with less direction provided on how to interpret historical evidence or when historical evidence provided by the patient can be interpreted as highly consistent with alleged injury in the absence of current physical findings. Through a case-based review, we present diagnostic strategies for the evaluation of alleged abuse involving wrist restraints/handcuffs, focusing on skin, neurologic, and osseous injuries. We highlight key findings from both the history and physical examination that will allow the evaluator to improve the accuracy of their expert medical opinion on the degree to which medical findings correlate with the patient's allegations of wrist restraint injuries.

"Rectal Feeding"-Unethical Medical Officer Participation at CIA Secret Interrogation Facilities.

This Viewpoint discusses recently released information regarding the practice of "rectal feeding" among detainees at Guantanamo Bay and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) secret prisons.

From Nuremberg to Guantanamo Bay: Uses of Physicians in the War on Terror.

Seventy years after the Nuremberg Doctors' Trial, health professionals and lawyers working together after 9/11 played a critical role in designing, justifying, and carrying out the US state-sponsored torture program in the CIA "Black Sites" and US military detention centers, including Abu Ghraib, Bagram, and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. We analyze the similarities between the Nazi doctors and health professionals in the War on Terror and address the question of how it happened that health professionals, including doctors, psychologists, physician assistants, and nurses, acted as agents of the state to utilize their medical and healing skills to cause harm and sanitize barbarous acts, similar to (though not on the scale of) how Nazi doctors were used by the Third Reich.

Primary care management of non-English-speaking refugees who have experienced trauma: a clinical review.

IMPORTANCE: Refugees are a vulnerable class of immigrants who have fled their countries, typically following war, violence, or natural disaster, and who have frequently experienced trauma. In primary care, engaging refugees to develop a positive therapeutic relationship is challenging. Relative to care of other primary care patients, there are important differences in symptom evaluation and developing treatment plans. OBJECTIVES: To discuss the importance of and methods for obtaining refugee trauma histories, to recognize the psychological and physical manifestations of trauma characteristic of refugees, and to explore how cultural differences and limited English proficiency affect the refugee patient-clinician relationship and how to best use interpreters. EVIDENCE REVIEW: MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library were searched from 1984 to 2012. Additional citations were obtained from lists of references from select research and review articles on this topic. FINDINGS: Engagement with a refugee patient who has experienced trauma requires an understanding of the trauma history and the trauma-related symptoms. Mental health symptoms and chronic pain are commonly experienced by refugee patients. Successful treatment requires a multidisciplinary approach that is culturally acceptable to the refugee. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Refugee patients frequently have experienced trauma requiring a directed history and physical examination, facilitated by an interpreter if necessary. Intervention should be sensitive to the refugee's cultural mores.

Medical evidence of human rights violations against non-Arabic-speaking civilians in Darfur: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Ongoing conflict in the Darfur region of Sudan has resulted in a severe humanitarian crisis. We sought to characterize the nature and geographic scope of allegations of human rights violations perpetrated against civilians in Darfur and to evaluate their consistency with medical examinations documented in patients' medical records. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This was a retrospective review and analysis of medical records from all 325 patients seen for treatment from September 28, 2004, through December 31, 2006, at the Nyala-based Amel Centre for Treatment and Rehabilitation of Victims of Torture, the only dedicated local provider of free clinical and legal services to civilian victims of torture and other human rights violations in Darfur during this time period. Among 325 medical records identified and examined, 292 (89.8%) patients from 12 different non-Arabic-speaking tribes disclosed in the medical notes that they had been attacked by Government of Sudan (GoS) and/or Janjaweed forces. Attacks were reported in 23 different rural council areas throughout Darfur. Nearly all attacks (321 [98.8%]) were described as having occurred in the absence of active armed conflict between Janjaweed/GoS forces and rebel groups. The most common alleged abuses were beatings (161 [49.5%]), gunshot wounds (140 [43.1%]), destruction or theft of property (121 [37.2%]), involuntary detainment (97 [29.9%]), and being bound (64 [19.7%]). Approximately one-half (36 [49.3%]) of all women disclosed that they had been sexually assaulted, and one-half of sexual assaults were described as having occurred in close proximity to a camp for internally displaced persons. Among the 198 (60.9%) medical records that contained sufficient detail to enable the forensic medical reviewers to render an informed judgment, the signs and symptoms in all of the medical records were assessed to be consistent with, highly consistent with, or virtually diagnostic of the alleged abuses. CONCLUSIONS: Allegations of widespread and sustained torture and other human rights violations by GoS and/or Janjaweed forces against non-Arabic-speaking civilians were corroborated by medical forensic review of medical records of patients seen at a local non-governmental provider of free clinical and legal services in Darfur. Limitations of this study were that patients seen in this clinic may not have been a representative sample of persons alleging abuse by Janjaweed/GoS forces, and that most delayed presenting for care. The quality of documentation was similar to that available in other conflict/post-conflict, resource-limited settings.

Examining the Impact of Restrictive Federal Immigration Policies on Healthcare Access: Perspectives from Immigrant Patients across an Urban Safety-Net Hospital.

The Trump Administration instituted a series of restrictive policies including the expansion of the public charge ruling, which created barriers to healthcare access for immigrant communities. This study examined immigrants' knowledge, attitudes, and health-seeking practices as a result of the public charge proposal. Thirty semi-structured interviews were conducted in English or Spanish with foreign-born adults at an urban safety-net hospital in Boston from May 2019 to August 2019. Thematic content analysis identified barriers and facilitators of healthcare access and usage. Approximately half of participants were aware of the public charge proposal. Six participants expressed concern about its implications, but only two discontinued benefits. Barriers to care included fear of deportation, interaction with law enforcement, and competing socioeconomic needs. Facilitators of care included supportive communities, immigrant-friendly environment, and personal beliefs. Hospitals can develop community-centered services for immigrant patients that offset the barriers to healthcare access resulting from adverse federal immigration policies.

The Boston Medical Center Immigrant Task Force: An Alternative to Teaching Immigration Law to Health Care Providers.

As healthcare providers engage in the politics of reforming and humanizing our immigration and asylum "system" it is critical that they are able to refer their patients whose health is directly impacted by our immigration laws and policies to experts who can help them navigate the system and obtain the healthcare they need.

Virginity testing: recommendations for primary care physicians in Europe and North America.

Virginity testing is a complex, culturally mediated practice that is poorly understood by Western clinicians. While advocating for global elimination of the practice of virginity testing as a human rights violation, clinical practice is often more complicated and ethically nuanced, and the clinician must act in the best interest of her patient. Upholding human rights does not have to be incompatible with providing a needed service to a patient, which should never include an invasive exam if not medically necessary, but should include education and safety assessments.

Prevalence of torture survivors among foreign-born patients presenting to an urban ambulatory care practice.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of torture among foreign-born patients presenting to urban medical clinics is not well documented. OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of torture among foreign-born patients presenting to an urban primary care practice. DESIGN: A survey of foreign-born patients. PATIENTS: Foreign-born patients, age > or = 18, presenting to the Primary Care Clinic at Boston Medical Center. MEASUREMENTS: Self-reported history of torture as defined by the UN, and history of prior disclosure of torture. RESULTS: Of the 308 eligible patients, 88 (29%) declined participation, and 78 (25%) were not included owing to lack of a translator. Participants had a mean age of 47 years (range 19 to 76), were mostly female (82/142, 58%), had been in the United States for an average of 14 years (range 1 month to 53 years), and came from 35 countries. Fully, 11% (16/142, 95 percent confidence interval 7% to 18%) of participants reported a history of torture that was consistent with the UN definition of torture. Thirty-nine percent (9/23) of patients reported that their health care provider asked them about torture. While most patients (15/23, 67%) reported discussing their experience of torture with someone in the United States, 8 of 23 (33%) reported that this survey was their first disclosure to anyone in the United States. CONCLUSION: Among foreign-born patients presenting to an urban primary care center, approximately 1 in 9 met the definition established by the UN Convention Against Torture. As survivors of torture may have significant psychological and physical sequelae, these data underscore the necessity for primary care physicians to screen for a torture history among foreign-born patients.