Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 16Reproductive Health and TechnologiesMedical and Health Sciences ResearchInternational Human Rights and Reproductive Law

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Restricted access to assisted reproductive technology and fertility preservation: legal and ethical issues

Oliveira, Brenda LC, Ataman, Lauren M., Rodrigues, Jhenifer K., Birchal, Telma S., Reis, Fernando M.·2021·Reproductive BioMedicine Online
DOI 10.1016/j.rbmo.2021.06.018
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Access to assisted reproductive technology (ART) and fertility preservation remains restricted in middle and low income countries. We sought to review the status of ART and fertility preservation in Brazil, considering social indicators and legislative issues that may hinder the universal access to these services. Although the Brazilian Constitution expressly provides the right to health, and ordinary law ensures the state is obliged to support family planning, access to services related to ART and fertility preservation is neither easy nor egalitarian in Brazil. Only a handful of public hospitals provide free ART, and their capacity far from meets demand. Health insurance does not cover ART, and the cost of private care is unaffordable to most people. Brazilian law supports, but does not command, the state provision of ART and fertility preservation to guarantee the right to family planning; therefore, the availability of state-funded treatments is still scarce, reinforcing social disparities. Economic projections suggest that including ART in the Brazilian health system is affordable and may actually become profitable to the state in the long term, not to mention the ethical imperative of recognizing infertility as a disease, with no reason to be excluded from a health system that claims to be 'universal'.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.rbmo.2021.06.018

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 0 references

Research works printed but not linked: 36

  1. ACOG, 2014, College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Gynecologic Practice and The Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Fertility and Sterility, 101, 633
  2. Basco, 2010, Insuring against infertility: expanding state infertility mandates to include fertility preservation technology for cancer patients. The Journal of law, medicine & ethics: a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 38, 832
  3. Bourlon, 2020, Oncofertility as a Universal Right and a Global Oncology Priority, JCO Global Oncology, 6, 314, 10.1200/GO.19.00337 · DOI
  4. Busnelli, 2020, Fertility in female cancer survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Reproductive biomedicine online, 41, 96, 10.1016/j.rbmo.2020.02.008 · DOI
  5. Carvalho, 2017, Ethical, moral and other aspects related to fertility preservation in cancer patients, JBRA Assisted Reproduction, 21, 45, 10.5935/1518-0557.20170011 · DOI
  6. Castro, 2019, Brazil's unified health system: the first 30 years and prospects for the future, Lancet (London, England), 394, 345, 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31243-7 · DOI
  7. Cimadomo, 2018, Impact of Maternal Age on Oocyte and Embryo Competence, Frontiers in Endocrinology, 9, 10.3389/fendo.2018.00327 · DOI
  8. Connolly, 2010, The costs and consequences of assisted reproductive technology: an economic perspective, Human Reproduction Update, 16, 603, 10.1093/humupd/dmq013 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Connolly, 2021, Estimating the government public economic benefits attributed to investing in assisted reproductive technology: a South African case study, Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 12, 14, 10.1016/j.rbms.2020.08.001 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Correa, 2020, Reproductive technology and social justice: a view from Brazil, Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 41, 1151, 10.1016/j.rbmo.2020.11.003 · DOI
  11. De Neubourg, 2013, The history of Belgian assisted reproduction technology cycle registration and control: a case study in reducing the incidence of multiple pregnancy, Human Reproduction, 28, 2709, 10.1093/humrep/det269 · DOI
  12. Fouks, Y., Hamilton, E., Cohen, Y., Hasson, J., Kalma, Y., Azem, F., 2020. In-vitro maturation of oocytes recovered during cryopreservation of pre-pubertal girls undergoing fertility preservation. Reproductive Biomedicine Online. · DOI
  13. Herndon, 2017, Outcomes from a university-based low-cost in vitro fertilization program providing access to care for a low-resource socioculturally diverse urban community, Fertility and Sterility, 108, 642, 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.06.035 · DOI
  14. IBGE, Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (2018). Estatísticas de Gênero: Indicadores sociais das mulheres no Brasil, pp. 1-13.
  15. Inhorn, 2015, Infertility around the globe: new thinking on gender, reproductive technologies and global movements in the 21st century, Human Reproduction Update, 21, 411, 10.1093/humupd/dmv016 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Jain, 2019, 30 years of data: impact of the United States in vitro fertilization data registry on advancing fertility care, Fertility and Sterility, 111, 477, 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.11.015 · DOI
  17. Katabi, 2020, Ethical Considerations of Fertility Preservation for Transmasculine and Nonbinary Youth, Transgender Health, 5, 201, 10.1089/trgh.2020.0004 · DOI
  18. Kenny, 2008, An ethical analysis of international health priority-setting. Health care analysis: HCA, Journal of Health Philosophy and Policy, 16, 145
  19. Leite, 2019, [Critical analysis on the evolution of ethical norms for the use of assisted reproduction techniques in Brazil], Ciencia & Saúde Coletiva, 24, 917, 10.1590/1413-81232018243.30522016 · DOI
  20. Makuch, 2011, Inequitable access to assisted reproductive technology for the low-income Brazilian population: a qualitative study, Human Reproduction, 26, 2054, 10.1093/humrep/der158 · DOI
  21. Mayhew, 2020, Fertility Options for the Transgender and Gender Nonbinary Patient, Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 105, 3335, 10.1210/clinem/dgaa529 · DOI
  22. Monteiro, 2019, Uterine alterations in women undergoing routine hysteroscopy before in vitro fertilization: high prevalence of unsuspected lesions, JBRA Assisted Reproduction, 23, 396
  23. Moraes, 2019, Oocyte cryopreservation for future fertility: comparison of ovarian response between cancer and non-cancer patients, JBRA Assisted Reproduction, 23, 91
  24. Nasab, 2020, Elective egg freezing: what is the vision of women around the globe?, Future Science OA, 6, Fso468, 10.2144/fsoa-2019-0068 · DOI
  25. Ombelet, 2005, Multiple gestation and infertility treatment: registration, reflection and reaction–the Belgian project, Human Reproduction Update, 11, 3, 10.1093/humupd/dmh048 · DOI
  26. Rashedi, 2018, Survey of Fertility Preservation Options Available to Patients With Cancer Around the Globe, Journal of global oncology, 4, 1
  27. Roque, 2015, Cost-Effectiveness of the Freeze-All Policy, JBRA Assisted Reproduction, 19, 125, 10.5935/1518-0557.20150028 · DOI
  28. Salama, 2018, Building Oncofertility Core Competency in Developing Countries: Experience From Egypt, Tunisia, Brazil, Peru, and Panama, Journal of Global Oncology, 4, 1
  29. Salama, 2020, Installing oncofertility programs for common cancers in limited resource settings (Repro-Can-OPEN Study): An extrapolation during the global crisis of Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, 37, 1567, 10.1007/s10815-020-01821-7 · DOI
  30. Santo, 2017, Social oocyte cryopreservation: a portrayal of Brazilian women, JBRA Assisted Reproduction, 21, 101, 10.5935/1518-0557.20170024 · DOI
  31. Sharma, 2013, Lifestyle factors and reproductive health: taking control of your fertility, Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology, 11, 66, 10.1186/1477-7827-11-66 · DOI
  32. Silva, 2019, Assisted reproductive technology: prevalence and associated factors in Southern Brazil, Revista de Saude Pubúlica, 53, 13, 10.11606/S1518-8787.2019053000737 · DOI
  33. Sun, 2019, Global, regional, and national prevalence and disability-adjusted life-years for infertility in 195 countries and territories, 1990-2017: results from a global burden of disease study, 2017, Aging, 11, 10952, 10.18632/aging.102497 · DOI
  34. United Nations (2014).Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population Development UNFPA, New York.
  35. Woodruff, 2015, Oncofertility: a grand collaboration between reproductive medicine and oncology, Reproduction, 150, S1, 10.1530/REP-15-0163 · DOI
  36. Zegers-Hochschild, 2020, Assisted reproductive techniques in Latin America: The Latin American Registry, 2017, JBRA Assisted Reproduction, 24, 362

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Oliveira, B. L., Ataman, L. M., Rodrigues, J. K., Birchal, T. S., & Reis, F. M.
Affiliations
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (BR)
ORCID
Venue
Reproductive BioMedicine Online
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-09
Volume
43
Issue
3
Pages
571-576
ISSN
1472-6483 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.rbmo.2021.06.018
OpenAlex
W3177137588
Cited by
14
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1
FWCI
0.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Reproductive BioMedicine Online (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Reproductive Health and Technologies
  • Social Sciences › Law › Medical and Health Sciences Research
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Human Rights and Reproductive Law
Keywords
assisted reproduction, fertility preservation, access to reproductive health services, right to health, family planning, health insurance coverage, health care inequities, public health funding, Brazil, reproductive ethics, reproductive law
MeSH terms
Brazil, Family Planning Services, Female, Health Services Accessibility, Humans, Infant, Newborn, Infertility, Male, Pregnancy, Reproductive Techniques, Assisted, Reproductive Rights, Healthcare Disparities, Fertility Preservation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.