the news now

The world's news, cross-checked among reputable sources.

Brazilian Court Rules Dental Council Resolution on Facial Harmonization Illegal

2 sources · Brazil

Who reported this

  • CNN Brasil Brazil · Centre · Rubens Menin (MRV)
  • Folha de S.Paulo Brazil · Centre · Grupo Folha (Frias family)

What the colours mean

  • Left
  • Centre-left
  • Centre
  • Centre-right
  • Right
  • A hatched block means the outlet is affiliated with, or controlled by, a state.

Political lean describes where an outlet sits within the politics of its own country. It is never a position on a single global scale.

Political lean is comparable inside one country and not across them, which is why the bar groups by country first. Publicly funded broadcasters are not marked as state-linked.

The owner of each outlet is listed as a matter of record, not as a judgement about the outlet.

Every source for this story reports from Brazil.

Every outlet covering this story shares the same political lean; read with that in mind.

The 8th Panel of the Regional Federal Court of the 1st Region (TRF-1) has ruled that a 2019 resolution by the Federal Council of Dentistry (CFO) is illegal. The resolution in question had recognized orofacial harmonization as a dental specialty and authorized dentists to perform various aesthetic procedures on the face, including the application of botulinum toxin, facial fillers, lipoplasty, bichectomy, and laser therapy. The court decided by a 3 to 1 vote that professional councils cannot use administrative resolutions to expand professional competencies beyond the limits established by law. The ruling follows a civil action brought by several medical entities, including the Federal Council of Medicine (CFM), the Brazilian Medical Association (AMB), the Brazilian Society of Dermatology (SBD), and the Brazilian Society of Plastic Surgery. These organizations argued that the CFO exceeded its regulatory authority by permitting invasive aesthetic procedures that are not provided for in the legislation governing dentistry. The legal dispute centered on the interpretation of Law 5.081/1966, which regulates dentistry, and Law 12.842/2013, known as the Medical Act Law, which reserves certain invasive procedures for physicians. The CFO has stated it will appeal the decision and maintains that dentists may continue to perform procedures that fall within their legal area of competence while the process continues. Medical representatives emphasized that the decision is necessary for patient safety, noting that invasive procedures carry risks of serious complications that require medical training to manage.

How each side framed it

Centre
Both center-leaning sources focused on the legal conflict between professional councils and the specific laws governing medical and dental scopes of practice.

Sources

100% of the statements in this article were traced back to the source articles listed above.