The development of legal rights for intersex persons: Part II: Advancement.

Having addressed the nature and complexity of intersexuality including commonalities with and differences from the transgender condition, we now address major legal challenges to the bisexual status quo through the legal advancement of rights for intersexual persons. Identified here are four domains in which the rights of intersex individuals are being advanced through litigation and legislation: (a) Sex assignment at birth and in early childhood, including the individual's right to consent and self-determination and to be spared from surgery that is not needed for medical reasons; (b) the right to change one's legal sex on legal documents such as birth certificates and passports, (c) the right of intersex persons to marry, and (d) the right not to be discriminated against. Within this legal framework, we identify commonalities with and differences from the struggle for rights within the transgender community.

The Development of Legal Rights for Intersex Persons: Part I: The Diversity of Intersex Conditions.

As the nature of transgender condition becomes better understood and the legal rights of transgender individuals are defined through court decisions and legislation, intersexuality ought not be overlooked. Potential commonalities as well as differences between intersexual and transgender individuals, clinically and psychosexually, may be mutually informing and relevant to their legal rights in ways that could implicate mental health services. In this review, the concepts of intersexuality and Disorders of Sexual Development are defined followed by a brief synopsis of the evolution of ancient conception of hermaphroditism into the vastly heterogenous biological conditions of today referred to as DSDs.

How specific is the specificity rule in duty to warn or protect jurisprudence following the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's Maas decision?

Of the various rules establishing a mental health clinician's legal duty to take precautions to protect their patient from harming others, the most common is the specificity rule that limits the protective duty to warn reasonably identifiable victims. The specificity rule is important wherein the main or only specified protective measure is warning the victim. In the last quarter century, Pennsylvania adopted the specificity rule from its Supreme Court Emerich decision.

Italian Evaluation and Excellence in REMS (ITAL-EE-REMS): appropriate placement of forensic patients in REMS forensic facilities.

Background: We set out to assess the appropriateness of current placement of mentally disordered offenders allocated by the courts in Italy to REMS or to forensic community residences. We hypothesised that as in other countries, the match between a standardised assessment and the decision of the court would be imperfect.

Methods: The DUNDRUM Toolkit was translated into Italian.