Domestic violence and the burden of proof

Watching the domestic violence presentation raised the question for me of the burden of proof. Shengwei's section on VAWA pointed out that to self-petition for a green card or visa, survivors must provide documentation of the abuse, and that Asian immigrant patients often cannot communicate to their doctors that they need such documentation. But shouldn't doctors record suspicions of abuse anyway? Why wouldn't this be a standard? Social justice circles got significantly exercised over the Wasilla buy-your-own-rape-kit initiative, but this is a similar concern. Emergency rooms, which provide a huge amount of medical care to immigrant and low-income women, receive public funding. They are a public institution, like the police who provide the assault kits; they're held to government standards. If I'm not grossly misunderstanding the situation, this is a case of low standards. The trouble is that we don't think it's the responsibility of service providers to anticipate the needs of the communities they serve, even in such reasonably predictable cases as this.

Similarly, it should not be surprising to any government institution with access to statistical records that a survivor of domestic abuse would not always want to press charges against her abuser. This is exacerbated, not lessened, in situations such as those covered by VAWA. The survivor's abuser may hold their documents; the abuser might have power over the people who could provide the survivor with testimonials. The abuser might even still have custody of their children. It could be very much in the survivor's best interest not to press charges, so why is the burden of proof on them?