Cross-border reproduction: the reproductive market in Angola and Brazil
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Argitaratua
12-09-2018
Rosana Machin
Maria Helena Oliva Augusto
Douglas Mendosa
Laburpena
Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) have grown significantly since the first birth through in vitro fertilization (IVF) in 1978 in the United Kingdom. Despite the massive global expansion of ART services over the past years, they remain inaccessible in Sub-Saharan Africa. In this article, we consider transnational mobility around ARTs by investigating the search for infertility treatment by Angolan couples in Brazil based on empirical material produced on the services of assisted reproduction in Brazil. Quantitative and qualitative methodologies were used. The quantitative online survey, answered by 84 out of 141 fertility clinics in Brazil, showed that there were a significant number of people coming to this country from Africa, Europe and North and South America, with a significant proportion of couples from Angola. To explore those findings, in-depth interviews were carried out with health professionals in Brazil (Sao Paulo) and Angola, and couples undergoing fertility treatments. The study discusses the dynamics involved in seeking treatment from developing countries (south-south relationship), the reproductive strategies and their implications in terms of cultural practices and community.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
References
Alves, S. M. C., et al. (2017). Cooperação internacional e escassez de médicos: análise da interação entre Brasil, Angola e Cuba. Ciência e Saúde Coletiva, 22(7), 2223-2235.
Anvisa (2016). 9° Relatório do Sistema Nacional de Produção de Embriões. SisEmbrio. Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária. Brasilia. Available at: http://portal.anvisa.gov.br/documents/33840/2817584/10%C2%BA+Relat%C3%B3rio+do+Sistema+Nacional+de+Produ%C3%A7%C3%A3o+de+Embri%C3%B5es+-+SisEmbrio/1121df4c-ab05-47e9-bae0-8dc283f36fbc.
Anvisa (2017). 1° Relatório de Importação de Amostras Seminais para uso em Reprodução Humana Assistida. Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária. Brasilia. Available at: http://portal.anvisa.gov.br/documents/33840/3484451/1%C2%B0+Relat%C3%B3rio+de+Importa%C3%A7%C3%A3o+de+Amostras+Seminais+para+uso+em+Reprodu%C3%A7%C3%A3o+Humana+Assistida/33c91fcf-18bb-4825-b659-a8a45053113f.
Augusto, M. H. O. (1986). Política social e tecnologia em saúde – ação estatal eincorporação de equipamentos médico-hospitalares às práticas de saúde (Tesis Doctoral inédita). Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo.
Baptista, D. M. T. (2008). Migração na metrópole: o caso dos angolanos em São Paulo. XVI Encontro Nacional de Estudos Populacionais, ABEP. Caxambu.
Banerjee, A. (2014). Raceand a transnationalreproductivecaste system: Indiantransnationalsurrogacy. Hypatia, 29(1), 113-128.
Barbosa, R. M. (1999). Desejo de filhos e infertilidade: um estudo sobre a reprodução assistida no Brasil (Tesis Doctoral inédita). Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo.
Boerma, J. T., and Mgalla, Z. (1999). Women and infertility in Sub-Saharan Africa. Reproductive Health Matters, 7(13), 183-188.
CFM (2013). Resolução CFM n°2013/2013. Brasília/DF: Conselho Federal de Medicina. Available at: https://portal.cfm.org.br/images/PDF/resoluocfm%202013.2013.pdf.
Cooper, M., and Waldby, M. (Eds.). (2014). Clinical Labor: Tissue Donors and Research Subjects in the Global Bioeconomy, Experimental Futures. Durham: Duke University Press.
Culley, L., Hudson, N., y Van Rooij, F. (Eds.). (2009). Marginalized reproduction: ethnicity, infertility and reproductive technologies. London: Earthscan.
Diniz, D. (2003). Tecnologias reprodutivas conceptivas: o estado da arte do debate legislativo brasileiro. Jornal Brasileiro de Reprodução Assistida,7(3), 10-19.
Fonseca, C., and Sá, G. (2011). Apresentação. Ciência, poder e ética: implicações e desdobramentos antropológicos. Horizontes Antropológicos, 17(35), 7-23.
Gerrits, T. (2016). Assisted reproductive technologies in Ghana: transnational undertakings, local practices and 'more affordable' IVF. Reproductive BioMedicine and Society Online, 2, 32-38.
Goodwin, M. B. (Ed.) (2010). Baby markets. Money and the new politics of creating families. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gürtin, Z., and Inhorn, M. (2011). Introduction: travelling for conception and the global assisted reproduction market. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 23(5), 535-537.
Hörbst, V. (2016). 'You cannot do IVF in Africa as in Europe': the making of IVF in Mali and Uganda. Reproductive BioMedicine and Society Online, 2, 108-115.
Hörbst, V., and Gerrits, T. (2016). Transational connections of health professionals: medicoscapes and assisted reproduction in Ghana and Uganda. Ethnicity & Health, 21(4), 357-374.
Hörbst, V., and Wolf, A. (2014). ARVs and ARTs: medicoscapes and the unequal place-making for biomedical treatments in sub-Saharan Africa. Medical Anthropology Quaterly, 28 (2), 182-202.
Ikemoto, L. C. (2009). Reproductive Tourism: equality concerns in the global market for fertility services. Law and Inequality, 27(277), 277-309.
Inhorn, M. (Ed.). (2007). Reproductive disruptions: gender, technology, and biopolitics in the new millennium. Oxford: Berghan Books.
Inhorn, M. (2011). Globalization and gametes: Islam, assisted reproductive technologies, and the Middle Eastern State. In C. H. Browner and C. Sargent (Eds.). Reproduction, globalization, and the state (pp. 126-138). Durham. Duke University Press.
Inhorn, M., and Gürtin, Z. (2011). Cross-border reproductive care: a future research agenda. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 23(5),665-676.
Inhorn, M., and Patrizio, P. (2015). Infertility around the globe: new thinking on gender, reproductive technologies and global movements in the 21st century. Human Reproduction Update, 21(4), 411-426.
Krolokke, C., Foss, K. A., and Pant, S. (2012). Fertility travel: the commodification of human reproduction. Cultural Politics, 8(2), 273-282.
Larsen, U. (2000). Primary and secondary infertility in sub-Saharan Africa. International Journal Epidemiology, 29, 285-291.
Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Lazzeri, T. (2017). De Angola para o Brasil para ter um bebê. Revista Época. 20/01/2016. Available at: http://epoca.globo.com/vida/noticia/2016/01/de-angola-por-um-bebe.html.
Machin, R. (2014). Sharing motherhood in lesbian reproductive practices. Biosocieties, 9(1), 42-59.
Nahman, M. (2011). Reverse traffic: intersecting inequalities in human egg donation. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 23, 626-633.
Pfeffer, N. (2011). Eggs-ploiting women: a critical feminist analysis of the different principles in transplant and ferility tourism. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 23(5), 634-641.
REDLARA. Rede Latino Americana de Reprodução Assistida (2015). Available at: http://redlara.com/aa_portugues/.
Shenfield, F., et al. (2010). Cross border reproductive care in six European countries. Human Reproduction, 25, 1361-1368.
Souza, M.C.B. (2014). Latin America and access to Assisted Reproductive Techniques: a Brazilian perspective. JBRA Assisted Reproduction, 18(2), 47-51.
Spar, D. (2005). Reproductive tourism and the regulatory map. The New England Journal of Medicine, 352(6), 531-533.
Thompson, C. (2005). Making Parents: The Ontological Choreography of Reproductive Technologies. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Whittaker, A. (2011). Cross-border reproduction care in Asia: implications for access, equity and regulations. Reproductive Health Matters, 19(37), 107-116.
WHO (2016). Estratégia de Cooperação da OMS 2015-2019 Angola. OMS Angola. Escritório Regional Africano. Available at: http://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/250516.
Anvisa (2016). 9° Relatório do Sistema Nacional de Produção de Embriões. SisEmbrio. Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária. Brasilia. Available at: http://portal.anvisa.gov.br/documents/33840/2817584/10%C2%BA+Relat%C3%B3rio+do+Sistema+Nacional+de+Produ%C3%A7%C3%A3o+de+Embri%C3%B5es+-+SisEmbrio/1121df4c-ab05-47e9-bae0-8dc283f36fbc.
Anvisa (2017). 1° Relatório de Importação de Amostras Seminais para uso em Reprodução Humana Assistida. Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária. Brasilia. Available at: http://portal.anvisa.gov.br/documents/33840/3484451/1%C2%B0+Relat%C3%B3rio+de+Importa%C3%A7%C3%A3o+de+Amostras+Seminais+para+uso+em+Reprodu%C3%A7%C3%A3o+Humana+Assistida/33c91fcf-18bb-4825-b659-a8a45053113f.
Augusto, M. H. O. (1986). Política social e tecnologia em saúde – ação estatal eincorporação de equipamentos médico-hospitalares às práticas de saúde (Tesis Doctoral inédita). Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo.
Baptista, D. M. T. (2008). Migração na metrópole: o caso dos angolanos em São Paulo. XVI Encontro Nacional de Estudos Populacionais, ABEP. Caxambu.
Banerjee, A. (2014). Raceand a transnationalreproductivecaste system: Indiantransnationalsurrogacy. Hypatia, 29(1), 113-128.
Barbosa, R. M. (1999). Desejo de filhos e infertilidade: um estudo sobre a reprodução assistida no Brasil (Tesis Doctoral inédita). Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo.
Boerma, J. T., and Mgalla, Z. (1999). Women and infertility in Sub-Saharan Africa. Reproductive Health Matters, 7(13), 183-188.
CFM (2013). Resolução CFM n°2013/2013. Brasília/DF: Conselho Federal de Medicina. Available at: https://portal.cfm.org.br/images/PDF/resoluocfm%202013.2013.pdf.
Cooper, M., and Waldby, M. (Eds.). (2014). Clinical Labor: Tissue Donors and Research Subjects in the Global Bioeconomy, Experimental Futures. Durham: Duke University Press.
Culley, L., Hudson, N., y Van Rooij, F. (Eds.). (2009). Marginalized reproduction: ethnicity, infertility and reproductive technologies. London: Earthscan.
Diniz, D. (2003). Tecnologias reprodutivas conceptivas: o estado da arte do debate legislativo brasileiro. Jornal Brasileiro de Reprodução Assistida,7(3), 10-19.
Fonseca, C., and Sá, G. (2011). Apresentação. Ciência, poder e ética: implicações e desdobramentos antropológicos. Horizontes Antropológicos, 17(35), 7-23.
Gerrits, T. (2016). Assisted reproductive technologies in Ghana: transnational undertakings, local practices and 'more affordable' IVF. Reproductive BioMedicine and Society Online, 2, 32-38.
Goodwin, M. B. (Ed.) (2010). Baby markets. Money and the new politics of creating families. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gürtin, Z., and Inhorn, M. (2011). Introduction: travelling for conception and the global assisted reproduction market. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 23(5), 535-537.
Hörbst, V. (2016). 'You cannot do IVF in Africa as in Europe': the making of IVF in Mali and Uganda. Reproductive BioMedicine and Society Online, 2, 108-115.
Hörbst, V., and Gerrits, T. (2016). Transational connections of health professionals: medicoscapes and assisted reproduction in Ghana and Uganda. Ethnicity & Health, 21(4), 357-374.
Hörbst, V., and Wolf, A. (2014). ARVs and ARTs: medicoscapes and the unequal place-making for biomedical treatments in sub-Saharan Africa. Medical Anthropology Quaterly, 28 (2), 182-202.
Ikemoto, L. C. (2009). Reproductive Tourism: equality concerns in the global market for fertility services. Law and Inequality, 27(277), 277-309.
Inhorn, M. (Ed.). (2007). Reproductive disruptions: gender, technology, and biopolitics in the new millennium. Oxford: Berghan Books.
Inhorn, M. (2011). Globalization and gametes: Islam, assisted reproductive technologies, and the Middle Eastern State. In C. H. Browner and C. Sargent (Eds.). Reproduction, globalization, and the state (pp. 126-138). Durham. Duke University Press.
Inhorn, M., and Gürtin, Z. (2011). Cross-border reproductive care: a future research agenda. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 23(5),665-676.
Inhorn, M., and Patrizio, P. (2015). Infertility around the globe: new thinking on gender, reproductive technologies and global movements in the 21st century. Human Reproduction Update, 21(4), 411-426.
Krolokke, C., Foss, K. A., and Pant, S. (2012). Fertility travel: the commodification of human reproduction. Cultural Politics, 8(2), 273-282.
Larsen, U. (2000). Primary and secondary infertility in sub-Saharan Africa. International Journal Epidemiology, 29, 285-291.
Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Lazzeri, T. (2017). De Angola para o Brasil para ter um bebê. Revista Época. 20/01/2016. Available at: http://epoca.globo.com/vida/noticia/2016/01/de-angola-por-um-bebe.html.
Machin, R. (2014). Sharing motherhood in lesbian reproductive practices. Biosocieties, 9(1), 42-59.
Nahman, M. (2011). Reverse traffic: intersecting inequalities in human egg donation. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 23, 626-633.
Pfeffer, N. (2011). Eggs-ploiting women: a critical feminist analysis of the different principles in transplant and ferility tourism. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 23(5), 634-641.
REDLARA. Rede Latino Americana de Reprodução Assistida (2015). Available at: http://redlara.com/aa_portugues/.
Shenfield, F., et al. (2010). Cross border reproductive care in six European countries. Human Reproduction, 25, 1361-1368.
Souza, M.C.B. (2014). Latin America and access to Assisted Reproductive Techniques: a Brazilian perspective. JBRA Assisted Reproduction, 18(2), 47-51.
Spar, D. (2005). Reproductive tourism and the regulatory map. The New England Journal of Medicine, 352(6), 531-533.
Thompson, C. (2005). Making Parents: The Ontological Choreography of Reproductive Technologies. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Whittaker, A. (2011). Cross-border reproduction care in Asia: implications for access, equity and regulations. Reproductive Health Matters, 19(37), 107-116.
WHO (2016). Estratégia de Cooperação da OMS 2015-2019 Angola. OMS Angola. Escritório Regional Africano. Available at: http://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/250516.
Zenbakia
Atala
Artículos de investigación. Monográficos
Los contenidos de Papeles del CEIC se distribuyen bajo la licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-SinObraDerivada 3.0 España (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 ES)
Usted es libre de:
- copiar, distribuir y comunicar públicamente la obra
Bajo las condiciones siguientes:
- Reconocimiento — Debe reconocer los créditos de la obra de la manera especificada por el autor o el licenciador (pero no de una manera que sugiera que tiene su apoyo o apoyan el uso que hace de su obra).
- No comercial — No puede utilizar esta obra para fines comerciales.
- Sin obras derivadas — No se puede alterar, transformar o generar una obra derivada a partir de esta obra.
Entendiendo que:
- Renuncia — Alguna de estas condiciones puede no aplicarse si se obtiene el permiso del titular de los derechos de autor
- Dominio Público — Cuando la obra o alguno de sus elementos se halle en el dominio público según la ley vigente aplicable, esta situación no quedará afectada por la licencia.
- Otros derechos — Los derechos siguientes no quedan afectados por la licencia de ninguna manera:
- Los derechos derivados de usos legítimos u otras limitaciones reconocidas por ley no se ven afectados por lo anterior.
- Los derechos morales del autor;
- Derechos que pueden ostentar otras personas sobre la propia obra o su uso, como por ejemplo derechos de imagen o de privacidad.
- Aviso — Al reutilizar o distribuir la obra, tiene que dejar bien claro los términos de la licencia de esta obra.