Why identification matters: an explorative study on six cases of family reunification.

The escalating phenomenon of migration, accompanied by a disturbing surge in associated tragedies, has persistently violated internationally protected human rights. Absence of physical evidence, namely the presence of adequately identified corpses, may impede the full enjoyment of human rights and-in some cases-the course of justice as it obstructs the initiation of legal proceedings against individuals implicated in causing such catastrophes. It also presents administrative obstacles, as death certificates are indispensable in legitimizing statuses like orphanhood and widowhood. Family reunification, particularly for orphans, plays a significant role for those attempting to reconnect with their relatives all over the world. Likewise, for mothers, the acknowledgment of their marital status or widowhood can be a pathway to regain their marginalized right to social life. To elucidate this issue, we analyzed six representative cases from the tragic October 3, 2013, shipwreck near the Italian island of Lampedusa, where 366 individuals were retrieved dead from the sea. These cases underscore the practical challenges involved, highlighting the compelling need for continued efforts to ensure that this burdensome problem transcends from being a mere ethical, moral, and legal discourse. Although considerable progresses, these cases also reveal that substantial work still lies ahead. There is a pressing need for improved mechanisms to certify kinship ties, which are often the limiting factor in many reunifications, and can hinder the granting of custody to children. The severity and far-reaching implications of this problem necessitate thoughtful attention and action, especially considering the ongoing escalation in migration and related fatalities.

A case series of CHARGE syndrome: identification of key features for a neonatal diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: An early diagnosis of CHARGE syndrome is challenging, especially for the primary care physicians who often take care of neonates with multiple congenital anomalies. Here we report eight cases of CHARGE syndrome whose diagnosis was made early in life with the intent to identify the most helpful features allowing a prompt clinical diagnosis. METHODS: Medical records of patients with CHARGE syndrome whose diagnosis was made at the Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico in Milan, Italy were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: Taken together, these patients reflect the considerable phenotypic variability of the syndrome; in one patient, the diagnosis was made immediately after birth because all the major criteria were met. In six patients, presenting with relatively nonspecific defects, a temporal bone computerized tomography scan was essential to achieve the correct diagnosis. In one patient, the diagnosis was made later than the others were. A careful examination revealed the presence of outer, middle, and inner ear anomalies: these elements, in the absence of any additional major criteria, represented for us an important diagnostic clue. CONCLUSIONS: This article suggests that an accurate evaluation of the ear should be made every time CHARGE syndrome is considered as a likely diagnosis even when the standard criteria are not fulfilled.