Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
On August 28, 1919, Brazil's most famous pediatrician, Dr. Carlos Arthur Moncorvo Filho, addressed his colleagues at the illustrious National Academy of Medicine in Rio de Janeiro, reminding them that consanguineous marriage was the topic of the moment. Dr. Moncorvo Filho's insistence that “everyone knew why” was a reference to a proposal made before the Senate just three months prior by Senators Eloy de Souza of the state of Pernambuco and Álvaro de Carvalho of São Paulo. The senators proposed that language prohibiting marriage between blood relatives in the recently ratified Brazilian Civil Code be amended to allow for special juridical or medical dispensation. Souza and Carvalho, with the backing of the Catholic Church and a minority of members of the Brazilian Institute of Attorneys, supported permitting marriage between third-degree relatives under special circumstances. At issue for the attorneys was how the law would deal with situations in which couples had a compelling need to marry within the third degree of kinship. A recent case of an uncle who had “deflowered” his niece and then offered to “remedy the damage” through marriage brought this issue to public debate. Marriages between uncles and their nieces and aunts and their nephews (third-degree relations) were traditional in Brazil, and Brazilian law had a long history of yielding to custom and context. However, under the new laws of the 30-year-old republic, this type of marriage was no longer legal, having been specifically prohibited by the 1916 Civil Code. Senators Souza and Carvalho, both lawyers by training, proposed reforming the Code, while their ultimately unsuccessful amendment sparked vigorous debate in both legal and medical circles on the validity of marriage restrictions within the third degree of consanguinity. As a result, physicians at Brazil's leading medical schools and their jurist counterparts at the law schools took sides on this critical issue, dividing themselves into rival camps of consanguinistas and anticonsanguinistas.
On August 28, 1919, Brazil's most famous pediatrician, Dr. Carlos Arthur Moncorvo Filho, addressed his colleagues at the illustrious National Academy of Medicine in Rio de Janeiro, reminding them that consanguineous marriage was the topic of the moment. Dr. Moncorvo Filho's insistence that “everyone knew why” was a reference to a proposal made before the Senate just three months prior by Senators Eloy de Souza of the state of Pernambuco and Álvaro de Carvalho of São Paulo. The senators proposed that language prohibiting marriage between blood relatives in the recently ratified Brazilian Civil Code be amended to allow for special juridical or medical dispensation. Souza and Carvalho, with the backing of the Catholic Church and a minority of members of the Brazilian Institute of Attorneys, supported permitting marriage between third-degree relatives under special circumstances. At issue for the attorneys was how the law would deal with situations in which couples had a compelling need to marry within the third degree of kinship. A recent case of an uncle who had “deflowered” his niece and then offered to “remedy the damage” through marriage brought this issue to public debate. Marriages between uncles and their nieces and aunts and their nephews (third-degree relations) were traditional in Brazil, and Brazilian law had a long history of yielding to custom and context. However, under the new laws of the 30-year-old republic, this type of marriage was no longer legal, having been specifically prohibited by the 1916 Civil Code. Senators Souza and Carvalho, both lawyers by training, proposed reforming the Code, while their ultimately unsuccessful amendment sparked vigorous debate in both legal and medical circles on the validity of marriage restrictions within the third degree of consanguinity. As a result, physicians at Brazil's leading medical schools and their jurist counterparts at the law schools took sides on this critical issue, dividing themselves into rival camps of consanguinistas and anticonsanguinistas.
The following article presents statements by pregnant or breastfeeding women to have been through custody hearings and criminal proceedings while released on bail, illustrating institutional responses to prenatal, childbirth, and post-natal care outside the prison environment. The aim was to document the possibilities for and difficulties of applying release measures, according to the women’s own narratives of violence. The qualitative research is based on an analysis of content and is organized according to thematic modules with an exploration of the material collected in interviews and field data. Several obstacles faced in the empirical study have been highlighted, as have the experiences of the women inside and outside the prisons, in terms of the exercise of motherhood, life with the child, the lack of state assistance, and the consequences of the imprisonment. The report from mothers to have been released on bail or placed under house arrest due to pregnancy demonstrates adequate pre-natal care and the children’s healthy development, although difficulties were still experienced during childbirth. The adoption of measures to release the women allowed for better access to healthcare, in line with the human right to safe motherhood. The satisfaction of being able to care for their children and live alongside family stood out as a positive factor. Situations of institutional violence still persist, given the insufficiency or absence of state protection.
Este artigo tem, como objetivo, a compreensão da esfera do trabalho na sociedade de Pindamonhangaba, localizada no Vale do Paraíba Paulista, no período da pós-abolição da escravidão. Para a realização desta pesquisa, as fontes utilizadas são Ações de Tutelas, manuscritos do século XIX, processados na esfera do Juízo de Órfãos, que traziam em suas páginas a procura pela mão de obra infantil, principalmente o trabalho dos filhos de mulheres ex-escravas, libertas e solteiras pobres, por ex-escravocratas, conforme demonstra a série documental de tutelas de 1888 a 1892. Mais uma vez, a família negra era separada; dessa vez, pela tutela. Novas lutas pela liberdade eram necessárias. Destacam-se, então, as fugas empenhadas por menores tutelados da companhia de seus tutores. Dependurada na estrutura da temática, há figura lateral da criação da primeira colônia orfanológica de Pindamonhangaba.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
334 Leonard St
Brooklyn, NY 11211
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.