Diverse family dynamics: reproductive, social, ethical, and legal perspectives in Brazil
Carla Maria Franco Dias, Ludmila Machado Neves Bercaire, Estella Thaisa Sontag dos Reis, Mary Elly Alves Negrão, Camylla Felipe Silva, Bruna Holanda Luz do Nascimento, Charles Schneider Borges1, Paula Andrea de Albuquerque Salles Navarro, Lucia Alves da Silva Lara
Abstract
Objectives: Nowadays, the concept of family encompasses new family structures, based on affectionate and cohabitation relationships, rather than being solely restricted to marriage between a man and a woman and their descendants. This article aims to discuss some social, ethical-legal, and reproductive aspects related to so-called plural families in Brazil. Methods: Mini-review of the literature presenting the most relevant information and some peculiarities related to assisted reproduction techniques and legal aspects related to family constitution and civil registration in plural families. Results: Assisted reproduction techniques made it possible for some individuals and couples to have biological offspring under conditions where natural conception might pose challenges, resulting in different family configurations. In Brazil, ethical standards for the use of assisted reproduction are regulated by the Federal Council of Medicine (CFM) and the civil registration of individuals resulting from these treatments follows the conditional regulations of the National Council of Justice (CNJ). Conclusion: Reproductive medicine has played a crucial role in mitigating prejudice and working towards greater equality between individuals in the formation of their families. However, many challenges and controversies related to ethical-legal aspects still permeate this topic.
Keywords
References
1. Brasil. Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil de 1988. Diário Oficial da República Federativa do Brasil [Internet]; Brasília; 1988 [cited 2023 Aug 12]. Available from: https://www.jusbrasil.com.br/legislacao/91972/constituicao-da-republica-federativa-do-brasil-1988.
2. Brasil. Resolução nº 175, de 14 de maio de 2013. Dispõe sobre a habilitação, celebração de casamento civil, ou de conversão de união estável em casamento, entre pessoas de mesmo sexo. Diário Oficial da República Federativa do Brasil [Internet]; Brasília; 2013 [cited 2023 Aug 12], nº 89:2. Available from: https://atos.cnj.jus.br/files/resolucao_175_14052013_16052013105518.pdf
3. Brasil. Conselho Federal de Medicina. Resolução CFM No. 2.320/2022. Diário Oficial da República Federativa do Brasil [Internet]; Brasília; 2022 [cited 2023 Aug 12]. p. 107. Available from: https://sistemas.cfm.org.br/normas/arquivos/resolucoes/BR/2022/2320_2022.pdf
4. Noronha JO. Provimento No. 63 [Internet]. Brasília, DF: Corregedoria Nacional de Justiça; 2017 [cited 2023 Aug 12]. Available from: https://atos.cnj.jus.br/atos/detalhar/2525
5. Brandão P, Ceschin N. Lesbian shared IVF: the ROPA method: a systematic review. Porto Biomed J. 2023;8(2):e202. http://doi. org/10.1097/j.pbj.0000000000000202. PMid:37152625.
6. Brandão P, Ceschin N, Cruz F, Sousa-Santos R, Reis-Soares S, Bellver J. Similar reproductive outcomes between lesbian-shared IVF (ROPA) and IVF with autologous oocytes. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2022;39(9):2061-7. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-022-02560-7. PMid:35819575.
7. De Wert G, Dondorp W, Shenfield F, Barri P, Devroey P, Diedrich K, et al. ESHRE Task Force on Ethics and Law 23: medically assisted reproduction in singles, lesbian and gay couples, and transsexual people†. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(9):1859-65. http:// doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu183. PMid:25052011.
8. Mattelin E, Strandell A, Bryman I. Fertility preservation and fertility treatment in transgender adolescents and adults in a Swedish region, 2013-2018. Hum Reprod Open. 2022;2022(2):hoac008. http://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoac008.
9. Israeli T, Preisler L, Kalma Y, Samara N, Levi S, Groutz A, et al. Similar fertilization rates and preimplantation embryo development among testosterone-treated transgender men and cisgender women. Reprod Biomed Online. 2022;45(3):448-56. http://doi. org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2022.04.016. PMid:35725536.
10. de Nie I, Meißner A, Kostelijk EH, Soufan AT, Voorn-de Warem IA, den Heijer M, et al. Impaired semen quality in trans women: prevalence and determinants. Hum Reprod. 2020;35(7):1529-36. http://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deaa133. PMid:32613241.
11. Barda S, Amir H, Mizrachi Y, Dviri M, Yaish I, Greenman Y, et al. Sperm parameters in Israeli transgender women before and after cryopreservation. Andrology. 2023;11(6):1050-6. http://doi.org/10.1111/andr.13369. PMid:36542410.
12. Honorato VC. Paternidade socioafetiva (Provimento 83 do CNJ) [Internet]. Nova Iguaçu, RJ: Revista Jus Navigandi; 2019 [cited 2023 Aug 12]. Available from: https://jus.com.br/artigos/78089/paternidade-socioafetiva-provimento-83-do-cnj
Submitted date:
01/10/2024
Accepted date:
05/21/2024
Facebook
Google+
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
StumbleUpon
CiteULike
Reddit
Email