Statement on Virginity Testing: Independent Forensic Expert Group

Virginity examinations are practiced in many countries, and often forcibly, in a number of contexts, including in detention places; on women who allege rape; on women who are accused by authorities of prostitution; and as part of public or social policies to control sexuality. In other states, the practice is illegal. The purpose of this medico-legal statement is to provide legal experts, adjudicators, healthcare professionals, and policymakers, among others, with an understanding of the physical and psychological effects of forcibly conducting virginity examinations on females and to assess whether, based on these effects, forcibly conducted virginity examinations constitute cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or torture. This medico-legal statement also addresses the medical interpretation and relevance of such examinations and the ethical implications. This opinion considers an examination to be ‘forcibly conducted’ when it is “committed by force, or by threat of force or coercion, such as caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or abuse of power, against such person incapable of giving genuine consent.”   For full details about the Independent Forensic Expert Group please visit http://www.irct.org/our-support/ medical-and-psychological-case-support/forensic-expertgroup.aspx

Statement on virginity testing

Virginity testing (virginity examination) is a gynecological examination that is intended to correlate the status and appearance of the hymen with previous sexual contact to determine whether a female has had or is habituated to sexual intercourse. Virginity examinations are practiced in many countries, often forcibly, including in detention places; on women who allege rape or are accused of prostitution; and as part of public or social policies to control sexuality. The Independent Forensic Expert Group (IFEG) - thirty-five preeminent independent forensic experts from eighteen countries specialized in evaluating and documenting the physical and psychological effects of torture and ill-treatment - released a statement on the practice in December 2014

Statement of the Independent Forensic Expert Group on Conversion Therapy

Conversion therapy is a set of practices that aim to change or alter an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity. It is premised on a belief that an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity can be changed and that doing so is a desirable outcome for the individual, family, or community. Other terms used to describe this practice include sexual orientation change effort (SOCE), reparative therapy, reintegrative therapy, reorientation therapy, ex-gay therapy, and gay cure. Conversion therapy is practiced in every region of the world. We have identified sources confirming or indicating that conversion therapy is performed in over 60 countries.1 In those countries where it is performed, a wide and variable range of practices are believed to create change in an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Some examples of these include: talk therapy or psychotherapy (e.g., exploring life events to identify the cause); group therapy; medication (including anti-psychotics, anti- depressants, anti-anxiety, and psychoactive drugs, and hormone injections); Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (where an individual focuses on a traumatic memory while simultaneously experiencing bilateral stimulation); electroshock or electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) (where electrodes are attached to the head and electric current is passed between them to induce seizure); aversive treatments (including electric shock to the hands and/or genitals or nausea-inducing medication administered with presentation of homoerotic stimuli); exorcism or ritual cleansing (e.g., beating the individual with a broomstick while reading holy verses or burning the individual’s head, back, and palms); force-feeding or food deprivation; forced nudity; behavioural conditioning (e.g., being forced to dress or walk in a particular way); isolation (sometimes for long periods of time, which may include solitary confinement or being kept from interacting with the outside world); verbal abuse; humiliation; hypnosis; hospital confinement; beatings; and “corrective” rape. Conversion therapy appears to be performed widely by health professionals, including medical doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, sexologists, and therapists. It is also conducted by spiritual leaders, religious practitioners, traditional healers, and community or family members. Conversion therapy is undertaken both in contexts under state control, e.g., hospitals, schools, and juvenile detention facilities, as well as in private settings like homes, religious institutions, or youth camps and retreats. In some countries, conversion therapy is imposed by the order or instructions of public officials, judges, or the police. The practice is undertaken with both adults and minors who may be lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, or gender diverse. Parents are also known to send their children back to their country of origin to receive it. The practice supports the belief that non-heterosexual orientations are deviations from the norm, reflecting a disease, disorder, or sin. The practitioner conveys the message that heterosexuality is the normal and healthy sexual orientation and gender identity. The purpose of this medico-legal statement is to provide legal experts, adjudicators, health care professionals, and policy makers, among others, with an understanding of: 1) the lack of medical and scientific validity of conversion therapy; 2) the likely physical and psychological consequences of undergoing conversion therapy; and 3) whether, based on these effects, conversion therapy constitutes cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or torture when individuals are subjected to it forcibly2 or without their consent. This medico-legal statement also addresses the responsibility of states in regulating this practice, the ethical implications of offering or performing it, and the role that health professionals and medical and mental health organisations should play with regards to this practice. Definitions of conversion therapy vary. Some include any attempt to change, suppress, or divert an individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. This medico-legal statement only addresses those practices that practitioners believe can effect a genuine change in an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Acts of physical and psychological violence or discrimination that aim solely to inflict pain and suffering or punish individuals due to their sexual orientation or gender identity, are not addressed, but are wholly condemned. This medico-legal statement follows along the lines of our previous publications on Anal Examinations in Cases of Alleged Homosexuality1 and on Forced Virginity Testing.2 In those statements, we opposed attempts to minimise the severity of physical and psychological pain and suffering caused by these examinations by qualifying them as medical in nature. There is no medical justification for inflicting on individuals torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. In addition, these statements reaffirmed that health professionals should take no role in attempting to control sexuality and knowingly or unknowingly supporting state-sponsored policing and punishing of individuals based on their sexual orientation or gender identity

Long-term safety and efficacy of patisiran for hereditary transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis with polyneuropathy: 12-month results of an open-label extension study

© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Background: Hereditary transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis is a rare, inherited, progressive disease caused by mutations in the transthyretin (TTR) gene. We assessed the safety and efficacy of long-term treatment with patisiran, an RNA interference therapeutic that inhibits TTR production, in patients with hereditary transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis with polyneuropathy. Methods: This multicentre, open-label extension (OLE) trial enrolled patients at 43 hospitals or clinical centres in 19 countries as of Sept 24, 2018. Patients were eligible if they had completed the phase 3 APOLLO or phase 2 OLE parent studies and tolerated the study drug. Eligible patients from APOLLO (patisiran and placebo groups) and the phase 2 OLE (patisiran group) studies enrolled in this global OLE trial and received patisiran 0·3 mg/kg by intravenous infusion every 3 weeks with plans to continue to do so for up to 5 years. Efficacy assessments included measures of polyneuropathy (modified Neuropathy Impairment Score +7 [mNIS+7]), quality of life, autonomic symptoms, nutritional status, disability, ambulation status, motor function, and cardiac stress, with analysis by study groups (APOLLO-placebo, APOLLO-patisiran, phase 2 OLE patisiran) based on allocation in the parent trial. The global OLE is ongoing with no new enrolment, and current findings are based on the interim analysis of the patients who had completed 12-month efficacy assessments as of the data cutoff. Safety analyses included all patients who received one or more dose of patisiran up to the data cutoff. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02510261. Findings: Between July 13, 2015, and Aug 21, 2017, of 212 eligible patients, 211 were enrolled: 137 patients from the APOLLO-patisiran group, 49 from the APOLLO-placebo group, and 25 from the phase 2 OLE patisiran group. At the data cutoff on Sept 24, 2018, 126 (92%) of 137 patients from the APOLLO-patisiran group, 38 (78%) of 49 from the APOLLO-placebo group, and 25 (100%) of 25 from the phase 2 OLE patisiran group had completed 12-month assessments. At 12 months, improvements in mNIS+7 with patisiran were sustained from parent study baseline with treatment in the global OLE (APOLLO-patisiran mean change -4·0, 95 % CI -7·7 to -0·3; phase 2 OLE patisiran -4·7, -11·9 to 2·4). Mean mNIS+7 score improved from global OLE enrolment in the APOLLO-placebo group (mean change from global OLE enrolment -1·4, 95% CI -6·2 to 3·5). Overall, 204 (97%) of 211 patients reported adverse events, 82 (39%) reported serious adverse events, and there were 23 (11%) deaths. Serious adverse events were more frequent in the APOLLO-placebo group (28 [57%] of 49) than in the APOLLO-patisiran (48 [35%] of 137) or phase 2 OLE patisiran (six [24%] of 25) groups. The most common treatment-related adverse event was mild or moderate infusion-related reactions. The frequency of deaths in the global OLE was higher in the APOLLO-placebo group (13 [27%] of 49), who had a higher disease burden than the APOLLO-patisiran (ten [7%] of 137) and phase 2 OLE patisiran (0 of 25) groups. Interpretation: In this interim 12-month analysis of the ongoing global OLE study, patisiran appeared to maintain efficacy with an acceptable safety profile in patients with hereditary transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis with polyneuropathy. Continued long-term follow-up will be important for the overall assessment of safety and efficacy with patisiran.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio