Search

Research Question: Son preference is a phenomenon typically prevalent in traditional societies in the Middle East and in East and South Asia. Hence, various sex-selection practices, either natural or medically assisted, have emerged. Islamic law forbids medically assisted sex selection for social reasons. Our aim was to examine the narratives of Sunni Muslim couples who underwent sex selection treatment by using sperm sorting and to understand their reasons for doing so., Design: A qualitative phenomenological study involving in-depth, face-to-face interviews with 31 women who gave birth to a male baby after undergoing sperm-sorting treatment, preimplantation genetic testing sex selection, or both, in a private clinic., Results: Interviewees spoke about the ethical dilemma they faced in choosing to violate the religious prohibition against sex selection; they explained the reasons why they opted to undergo sperm-sorting treatment and why the utmost secrecy surrounded it., Conclusions: Some Sunni Muslim couples privately defy the Sunni Muslim orthodoxy on their way to becoming parents to male offspring. Sons are preferred over daughters because of the traditional value attached to male offspring in Muslim culture. Therefore, couples who have only daughters may face an ethical dilemma of whether to obey the religious prohibition against sex selection or to violate it and enjoy societal acceptance and recognition for having a son., (Copyright © 2020 Reproductive Healthcare Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The UK's on-going sex-selective abortion (SSA) controversy remains a major obstacle to the liberalization of national abortion governance, and is an issue broadly attributed to a "cultural" preference for sons among South Asian women. We conceptualize how healthcare professionals "arbitrate" requests for SSA by exploring the tension between its legal status and how requests are encountered by abortion providers. SSA is framed in this article as a legitimate care service that can support providers to meet the diverse reproductive health needs of women to the full extent of the law.

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) can determine the sex of the fetus very accurately and very early in gestation. There are concerns that the ease, timing, and accuracy of NIPT sex determination will facilitate sex-selective termination of pregnancy (TOP). Here, we review current practices, the evidence for a link between NIPT and sex-selective TOP, and associated ethical issues. Sex-selective TOP, usually motivated by son preference, has had serious demographic consequences in countries such as India and China. Currently, ultrasound is the primary method by which parents determine the sex of the fetus. The diffusion of ultrasound technology has had a direct impact on the rates of sex-selective TOP. Although NIPT is currently more costly, it is feasible that increased uptake of this technology could have a similar effect. Partly because NIPT is a relatively recent development in prenatal screening, there is little data on the impact of NIPT on sex selection practices. Evidence that NIPT is playing a role in sex-selective TOP remains largely anecdotal. Further research is required to assess and quantify TOP resulting from NIPT sex determination. The use of these technologies for sex selection raises a number of ethical issues, in addition to practical demographic consequences., (© 2019 The Authors. Prenatal Diagnosis published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

It is widely assumed that the strongest case for permitting non-medical sex selection is where parents aim at family balance. This piece criticizes one representative attempt to justify sex selection for family balance. Kluge (2007) assumes that some couples may seek sex selection because they hold discriminatory values, but this need not impugn those who merely have preferences, without evaluative commitments, for a particular sex. This is disputed by those who see any sex selection as inherently sexist because it upholds stereotypes about the sexes. This article takes an alternative approach. I argue that, even if we accept that preference-based selection is unobjectionable, a policy permitting selection for family balancing does a poor job of distinguishing between value-based and preference-based selection. If we wish to permit only preference-based sex selection we should seek to identify parents' motives. If we wish to justify a family balancing policy, other arguments are needed., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

This article explores the moral significance of technology, reviewing a microfluidic chip for sperm sorting and its use for non-medical sex selection. I explore how a specific material setting of this new iteration of pre-pregnancy sex selection technology-with a promised low cost, non-invasive nature and possibility to use at home-fosters new and exacerbates existing ethical concerns. I compare this new technology with the existing sex selection methods of sperm sorting and Prenatal Genetic Diagnosis. Current ethical and political debates on emerging technologies predominantly focus on the quantifiable risk-and-benefit logic that invites an unequivocal "either-or" decision on their future and misses the contextual ethical impact of technology. The article aims to deepen the discussion on sex selection and supplement it with the analysis of the new technology's ethical potential to alter human practices, perceptions and the evaluative concepts with which we approach it. I suggest that the technological mediation approach (Verbeek, 2005, 2011) can be useful to ethically contextualize technologies and highlight the value of such considerations for the informed deliberation regarding their use, design and governance.

The Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act was written to prevent societally unacceptable harms including intentional sex selection. The pragmatism required to enforce this law has profound effects on the ability of rural Indians to access diagnostic ultrasonography. In so doing, it may have inadvertently placed a heavier burden on the poorest and worsened health inequity in India, creating serious ethical and justice concerns. It is time to re-examine and update the law such that diagnostic ultrasonography is widely available in even the most peripheral primary health and community health centres. Shorter, more accessible ultrasonography training courses should be offered; collaboration between radiologists and rural practitioners and facilities should be encouraged. Finally, modern ultrasound machines can carefully record all images via a "silent observer" modality. With some modifications to previously used silent observer modalities, this technology allows both greater access and better policing of potential misuse of ultrasound technology.

The national ethical guidelines relevant to assisted reproductive technology (ART) have recently been reviewed by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). The review process paid particular attention to the issue of non-medical sex selection, although ultimately, the updated ethical guidelines maintain the pre-consultation position of a prohibition on non-medical sex selection. Whilst this recent review process provided a public forum for debate and discussion of this ethically contentious issue, the Victorian case of JS and LS v Patient Review Panel (Health and Privacy) [2011] VCAT 856 provides a rare instance where the prohibition on non-medical sex selection has been explored by a court or tribunal in Australia. This paper analyses the reasoning in that decision, focusing specifically on how the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal applied the statutory framework relevant to ART and its comparison to other uses of embryo selection technologies. The Tribunal relied heavily upon the welfare-of-the-child principle under the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008 (Vic). The Tribunal also compared non-medical sex selection with saviour sibling selection (that is, where a child is purposely conceived as a matched tissue donor for an existing child of the family). Our analysis leads us to conclude that the Tribunal's reasoning fails to adequately justify the denial of the applicants' request to utilize ART services to select the sex of their prospective child.

The most benign rationale for sex selection is deemed to be "family balancing." On this view, provided the sex distribution of an existing offspring group is "unbalanced," one may legitimately use reproductive technologies to select the sex of the next child. I present four novel concerns with granting "family balancing" as a justification for sex selection: (a) families or family subsets should not be subject to medicalization; (b) sex selection for "family balancing" entrenches heteronormativity, inflicting harm in at least three specific ways; (c) the logic of affirmative action is appropriated; (d) the moral mandate of reproductive autonomy is misused. I conclude that the harms caused by family balancing are sufficiently substantive to override any claim arising from a supposed right to sex selection as an instantiation of procreative autonomy.

Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) became well known in Malaysia after the birth of the first Malaysian 'designer baby', Yau Tak in 2004. Two years later, the Malaysian Medical Council implemented the first and only regulation on the use of Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis in this country. The birth of Yau Tak triggered a public outcry because PGD was used for non-medical sex selection thus, raising concerns about PGD and its implications for the society. This study aims to explore participants' perceptions of the future implications of PGD for the Malaysian society. We conducted in-depth interviews with 21 participants over a period of one year, using a semi-structured questionnaire. Findings reveal that responses varied substantially among the participants; there was a broad acceptance as well as rejection of PGD. Contentious ethical, legal and social issues of PGD were raised during the discussions, including intolerance to and discrimination against people with genetic disabilities; societal pressure and the 'slippery slope' of PGD were raised during the discussions. This study also highlights participants' legal standpoint, and major issues regarding PGD in relation to the accuracy of diagnosis. At the social policy level, considerations are given to access as well as the impact of this technology on families, women and physicians. Given these different perceptions of the use of PGD, and its implications and conflicts, policies and regulations of the use of PGD have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis while taking into consideration of the risk-benefit balance, since its application will impact the lives of so many people in the society.

This Bioethics and Biopolitics: Presents and Futures of Reproduction symposium draws together a series of articles that were each submitted independently by their authors to the JBI and which explore the biopower axis in the externalization of reproduction in four contexts: artificial gestation (ectogenesis), PGD for sex selection, women's (reproductive) rights, and testicular cryopreservation (TCCP). While one contribution explores a "future" of reproduction, the other three explore a "present," or better, explore different "presents." What may counts as "present," and what may count as "future," has dramatically different connotations depending on the geographical declination of the tense.

This paper aims to address how artificial gestation might affect equality of opportunity for the unborn and any resultant generation of "ectogenetic" babies. It will first explore the current legal obstacles preventing the development of ectogenesis, before looking at the benefits of allowing this technology to control fetal growth and development. This will open up a discussion of the treatment/enhancement divide regarding the use of reproductive technologies, a topic featured in various bioethical debates on the subject. Using current maternity practices in Western society as a comparator, this paper will conclude that neither naturally nor artificially gestated fetuses have interests that can conflict with those of potential parents who might want to use this technology to control fetal development. Such control may include selective implantation of embryos of a desired gender, deliberate choice of genetic traits, or maintenance of an ideal incubation environment to avoid fetal damage. Objections on the basis of disability as well as concerns regarding eugenics will be addressed. The paper will conclude that none of these objections are compelling grounds to prevent the development and use of ectogenesis technologies for the purpose of achieving specific reproductive goals, particularly when compared to current practices in pre-implantation genetic diagnosis and selective abortion on the grounds of undesired traits. As such, when deciding whether to support ectogenesis research, the enduring interests of parents must be the primary consideration, with societal concerns regarding potential misuse the only valid secondary consideration.

Non-medical sex selection is premised on the notion that the sexes are not interchangeable. Studies of individuals who undergo sex selection for non-medical reasons, or who have a preference for a son or daughter, show that they assume their child will conform to the stereotypical roles and norms associated with their sex. However, the evidence currently available has not succeeded in showing that the gender traits and inclinations sought are caused by a "male brain" or a "female brain". Therefore, as far as we know, there is no biological reason why parents cannot have the kind of parenting experience they seek with a child of any sex. Yet gender essentialism, a set of unfounded assumptions about the sexes which pervade society and underpin sexism, prevents parents from realising this freedom. In other words, unfounded assumptions about gender constrain not only a child's autonomy, but also the parent's. To date, reproductive autonomy in relation to sex selection has predominantly been regarded merely as the freedom to choose the sex of one's child. This paper points to at least two interpretations of reproductive autonomy and argues that sex selection, by being premised on gender essentialism and/or the social pressure on parents to ensure their children conform to gender norms, undermines reproductive autonomy on both accounts.

Noninvasive prenatal screening using cell-free DNA, which analyzes placental DNA circulating in maternal blood to provide information about fetal chromosomal disorders early in pregnancy and without risk to the fetus, has been hailed as a potential "paradigm shift" in prenatal genetic screening. Commercial provision of cell-free DNA screening has contributed to a rapid expansion of the tests included in the screening panels. The tests can include screening for sex chromosome anomalies, rare subchromosomal microdeletions and aneuploidies, and most recently, the entire fetal genome. The benefits of this screening tool are generally framed, by both providers and commercial laboratories, as enhancing reproductive autonomy and choice by providing an earlier, simpler, and more accurate screening while potentially reducing the need for invasive follow-up testing. The majority of the literature has explored these issues empirically or conceptually from a European or North American vantage point, one that assumes normative priorities such as individual reproductive autonomy and the clinical availability of maternal health care or prenatal screening programs within which cell-free DNA screening is offered. While its implementation has raised both challenges and opportunities, very little is known about real-world experiences and the implications of the rapid introduction of cell-free DNA screening outside of North America and Europe, especially in low- and middle-income countries. To begin addressing this gap in knowledge, we organized a four-day international workshop to explore the ethical, legal, social, economic, clinical, and practical implications of the global expansion of cell-free DNA screening. We describe eight key insights that arose from the workshop., (© 2017 The Hastings Center.)

Sex selection skewed towards males is a malady that our society is grappling with. The desire to have a child of preferred gender has encouraged people to move beyond the ambit of traditions and explore scientific methods. Despite the controversies around sex-selection for social reasons and strong regulatory mechanisms in place, the demand for such measures has not gone down. On the contrary, traditional practice of consuming indigenous medicines during pregnancy for a male child continues. Recent research highlights the harms of this practice in the form of birth defects and stillbirths. This has led to stricter enforcement of PCPNDT Act and has stimulated the propagation of messages on the harms of these practices in the community.

In this article, we consider the prohibition on the use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis to select an embryo on the basis of its sex for non -: medical reasons. We use this as a case study to explore the role that public consultations have and should play in ethico-legal decision-making. Until the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 was amended by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, non-medical sex selection of an embryo was not statutorily regulated, but it was the policy of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority that such selection should not occur. However, since 2009, it has been a criminal offence to select an embryo on the basis of its sex for non-medical reasons. We consider the reasons given for this change and explore the role that 'public opinion' had in the decision-making process. On the face of it, asking the public what they think seems reasonable, fair and democratic, and those who are not in favour of public consultations being accorded great weight in matters of policy may appear out of touch and as wanting to impose their moral views on the public at large. But there are problems with doing so, especially when seeking to regulate ethically controversial issues. We discuss whether regulation should be influenced by public opinion obtained via 'public consultations', and utilise sex selection for non-medical reasons as an example of how (apparently) public opinion was used to support the criminalisation of this practice., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

This column considers the phenomenon of social sex selection and whether its legal prohibition can be justified in Australasia. It looks at whether the liberal autonomy framework is an adequate ethical basis for assessing sex selection and whether sex selection may raise ethical concerns about the nature of parenting and the welfare .of future children in the Australasian context. It argues that with sex selection comes the implicit instrumentalisation and commodification of children, which both stem from and encourage attitudes contrary to those underpinning the virtues required of parents. It concludes that in lieu of robust arguments in favour of sex selection and in light of the probable (or at least plausible) negative impact on the nature of parenting and the welfare of future children, the legal prohibition on social sex selection should be maintained in Australasia.

Because these practices are ethically controversial, clinics are encouraged to develop and make available their policies on the provision of nonmedical sex selection, and to accommodate their employees' decisions about whether or not to participate in such treatment. Practitioners offering assisted reproductive services are under no ethical obligation to provide or refuse to provide nonmedically indicated methods of sex selection. This document replaces two documents previously published by the ASRM Ethics Committee, titled, "Sex selection and preimplantation genetic diagnosis" (Fertil Steril 2004;82:S245-8) and "Preconception gender selection for nonmedical reasons" (Fertil Steril 2004;82:S232-5)., (Copyright © 2015 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This paper offers a critical discourse analysis of media debate over social sex selection in the Australian media from 2008 to 2014. This period coincides with a review of the National Health and Medical Research Council's Ethical Guidelines on the Use of Assisted Reproductive Technology in Clinical Practice and Research (2007), which underlie the regulation of assisted reproductive clinics and practice in Australia. I examine the discussion of the ethics of pre-implatation genetic diagnosis (PGD) within the media as 'ethical publicity' to the lay public. Sex selection through PGD is both exemplary of and interconnected with a range of debates in Australia about the legitimacy of certain reproductive choices and the extent to which procreative liberties should be restricted. Major themes emerging from media reports on PGD sex selection in Australia are described. These include: the spectre of science out of control; ramifications for the contestation over the public funding of abortion in Australia; private choices versus public authorities regulating reproduction; and the ethics of travelling overseas for the technology. It is concluded that within Australia, the issue of PGD sex selection is framed in terms of questions of individual freedom against the principle of sex discrimination - a principle enshrined in legislation - and a commitment to publically-funded medical care.

According to Article 14 of the Oviedo Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine of the Council of Europe, the use of techniques of medically assisted procreation shall not be allowed for the purpose of choosing the sex of a future child, unless serious hereditary sex-related disease is to be avoided. In Israel and the United States of America, pre-conception sex selection for the purpose of family balancing is legal. The European health culture does not regard reproductive justice as part of social justice. From this aspect, the situation is very similar in China and India. Reproductive liberty is opposed by the Catholic Church, too. According to the Catholic Church, medical grounds may not justify pre-conception sex selection, though being bioethically less harmful than family balancing for social reasons. In Hungary, according to Section 170 of the Criminal Code, pre-conception sex selection for the purpose of family balancing constitutes a crime. At present, the Hungarian legislation is in full harmony with the Oviedo Convention, enacted in Hungary in 2002.

This article considers whether it is lawful in Australia to terminate one or more fetuses in a multiple pregnancy selectively and, if so, under what circumstances. It begins by addressing the preliminary question whether selective reduction is covered by laws relating to abortion and provides a brief outline of the law of abortion in Australian jurisdictions. The article then considers selective reduction of high-order multiple pregnancies, before turning to selective reduction of twin pregnancies in a range of circumstances. The article demonstrates that the law of abortion, as applied to selective reduction of multiple pregnancies, is uncertain and that there are considerable variations from one State to another. It concludes that the law in this area is in need of reform to recognise that some reductions are not performed prima facie to prevent danger to the mother's health and to remove the need for doctors to assert symptomatology of mental illness in order to guard against criminal law consequences. Further, there is a need to clarify whether selective reduction/ termination is abortion for the purposes of the law, and to achieve greater consistency across jurisdictions.

Drawing from Julian Savulescu's argument for the obligation to use technological interventions for the enhancement human life, the Principle of Procreative Beneficence (PPB) states that parents have a moral obligation to use available reproductive technologies, including techniques of genetic manipulation, to create children who have the best chance of enjoying the best possible life. The aim of this study is to analyse the extent to which the possibility of using genetic manipulation to promote specific personality traits and thereby enhance human life is actually supported by current scientific knowledge and to determine whether the techniques employed in embryo selection comply with the PPB. In light of this analysis, the importance of involving the scientific community in the enhancement debate will be made clear. Moreover, when current knowledge of genetic and epigenetic processes and evidence of the risks of assisted reproductive technologies are taken into account, we find sufficient reason - even when guided by the PPB - to abstain from the use of current techniques of genetic manipulation and embryonic selection.

This Task Force document discusses some relatively unexplored ethical issues involved in preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). The document starts from the wide consensus that PGD is ethically acceptable if aimed at helping at-risk couples to avoid having a child with a serious disorder. However, if understood as a limit to acceptable indications for PGD, this 'medical model' may turn out too restrictive. The document discusses a range of possible requests for PGD that for different reasons fall outwith the accepted model and argues that instead of rejecting those requests out of hand, they need to be independently assessed in the light of ethical criteria. Whereas, for instance, there is no good reason for rejecting PGD in order to avoid health problems in a third generation (where the second generation would be healthy but faced with burdensome reproductive choices if wanting to have children), using PGD to make sure that one's child will have the same disorder or handicap as its parents, is ethically unacceptable., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

This Task Force document revisits the debate about the ethics of sex selection for non-medical reasons in the light of relevant new technological developments. First, as a result of improvement of the Microsort® flow cytometry method, there is now a proven technique for preconception sex selection that can be combined both with IVF and IUI. Secondly, the scenario where new approaches that are currently being developed for preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) may lead to such screening becoming a routine part of all IVF treatment. In that scenario professionals will more often be confronted with parental requests for transfer of an embryo of a specific sex. Thirdly, the recent development of non-invasive prenatal testing based on cell-free fetal DNA in maternal plasma allows for easy and safe sex determination in the early stages of pregnancy. While stressing the new urgency that these developments give to the debate, the Task Force did not come to a unanimous position with regard to the acceptability of sex selection for non-medical reasons in the context of assisted reproduction. Whereas some think maintaining the current ban is the best approach, others are in favour of allowing sex selection for non-medical reasons under conditions that take account of societal concerns about the possible impact of the practice. By presenting these positions, the document reflects the different views about this issue that also exist in the field. Specific recommendations include the need for a wider delineation of accepted 'medical reasons' than in terms of avoiding a serious sex-linked disorder, and for a clarification of the legal position with regard to answering parental requests for 'additional sex selection' in the context of medically indicated preimplantation genetic diagnosis, or routine PGS.

Sex selection of children by pre-conception and post-conception techniques remains morally controversial and even illegal in some jurisdictions. Among other things, some critics fear that sex selection will distort the sex ratio, making opposite-sex relationships more difficult to secure, while other critics worry that sex selection will tilt some nations toward military aggression. The human sex ratio varies depending on how one estimates it; there is certainly no one-to-one correspondence between males and females either at birth or across the human lifespan. Complications about who qualifies as 'male' and 'female' complicate judgments about the ratio even further. Even a judiciously estimated sex ratio does not have, however, the kind of normative status that requires society to refrain from antenatal sex selection. Some societies exhibit lopsided sex ratios as a consequence of social policies and practices, and pragmatic estimates of social needs are a better guide to what the sex ratio should be, as against looking to 'nature'. The natural sex ratio cannot be a sound moral basis for prohibiting parents from selecting the sex of their children, since it ultimately lacks any normative meaning for social choices., (© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.)

Much has been written about the ethics of sex selection. This article thoroughly explores the ethical arguments put forth in the literature both for and against non-medical sex selection using sperm sorting. While most of these arguments come from philosophers, feminist scholars, social scientists and members of the healthcare community, they are often echoed in empirical studies that have explored community values. This review is timely because the first efficacious method for sex selection via sperm sorting, MicroSort, is currently in clinical trials and moving closer to FDA approval for marketing in the USA. While the clinical trials are currently focused on the use of MicroSort to avoid X-linked genetic diseases, MicroSort can also be used to satisfy parental preferences., (Copyright © 2012 Reproductive Healthcare Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The practice of sex selection for social reasons has raised serious criticism. Advocates of this practice, however, insist that objections to it are unfounded and that legal bans are ethically unjustified. Usually, proponents use a rights-based liberal approach as the framework to evaluate this practice. Under this framework, reproductive choice is a basic freedom and interference with individuals' autonomous reproductive choices is illegitimate, unless their actions are shown to seriously harm others. As persuasive as this framework might be in relation to many aspects of reproduction, I argue that it is inappropriate when dealing with sex selection for social purposes.

Background: Because of its ethical and social implications, preimplantation sex selection is frequently the subject of debates., Methods: In 2006, we surveyed specialists in reproductive medicine in Germany using an anonymous questionnaire, including sociodemographic data and questions regarding ethical problems occurring in the practice of reproductive medicine. Most questions focused on preimplantation sex selection, including 10 case vignettes, since these enabled us to describe the most difficult and ethically controversial situations. This is the first survey among specialists in reproductive medicine regarding this topic in Germany., Results: 114 specialists in reproductive medicine participated, 72 males (63%) and 42 females (37%), average age was 48 years (age range 29-67 years). The majority of respondents (79%) favoured a regulation that limits the use of preimplantation sex selection only for medical reasons, such as X-linked diseases (including 18%: summoning an ethics commission for every case). A minority of 18% approved of the use of sex selection for non-medical reasons (4% generally and further 14% for family balancing). 90% had received obvious requests from patients. The highest approval (46%) got the counselling guideline against a preimplantation sex selection and advising a normal pregnancy, if preimplantation sex selection would be allowed in Germany. The majority (67%) was opposed the personal use of preimplantation sex selection for non-medical reasons, but would think about it in medical cases. In opposite to woman, 14% of the men were in favour of personal use for non-medical reasons (p=0,043). 25% of specialists in reproductive medicine feared that an allowance of preimplantation sex selection would cause a shift in the sex ratio., Conclusions: The majority of German specialists in reproductive medicine opposes preimplantation sex selection for non-medical reasons while recommending preimplantation sex selection for medical reasons, e.g. X-linked diseases like haemophilia.

I argue that the existence of sexual dimorphism poses a profound challenge to those philosophers who wish to deny the moral significance of the idea of 'normal human capacities' in debates about the ethics of human enhancement. The biological sex of a child will make a much greater difference to their life prospects than many of the genetic variations that the philosophical and bioethical literature has previously been concerned with. It seems, then, that bioethicists should have something to say about the choice between a male and a female embryo. Either, 1) parents have reason to choose boys over girls; (2) parents have reason to choose girls over boys; or, (3) parents have neither reason to choose girls over boys nor reason to choose boys over girls. Embracing either of the first two alternatives has strongly counterintuitive--and arguably morally repugnant--consequences. To motivate the third option we must either make reference to the idea of 'normal human capacities' or argue that parents should consider the interests of society when thinking about what sort of children they should bring into the world - an implication that should be extremely controversial in debates about the 'new eugenics'. I conclude, then, that the idea of 'normal human capacities' is properly crucial to reasoning about the ethics of shaping future persons., (© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.)

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) has been practiced for over 20 years. It prevents the birth of children with serious genetic diseases by selecting healthy embryos before pregnancy. In France, the initial indications of PGD have been extended in two directions: on the one hand, to allow identification of a mutation combined with embryo's HLA typing, to obtain, at birth, stem cells for therapeutic purposes, and on the other hand, to avoid transmission of late onset diseases without having to test the at-risk parent. Other applications are practiced worldwide but are not allowed in our country, such as social sexing. Technological developments can enable more complex diagnosis, research of several diseases or other genetic traits. It may be useful, for example, to use this possibility to add screening for Down's syndrome at any PDG in older women, when the risk is high. Other objectives were considered but presenting difficulties in their application, not only for regulatory and technical reasons, but also from an ethical point of view., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Son preference remains common in countries from East Asia through South Asia to the Middle East and North Africa. Where sex selective technology and abortion are readily available, such as in China, South Korea and India, this has led to a marked excess in male births. Worst excesses are seen in parts of rural China where there are 140 male births for every 100 female. This leads to large numbers of unmarriageable men. Concerns about the consequences centre around the propensity to aggression and violence of these men with increased levels of crime and antisocial behaviour, threatening societal stability and security. But recent studies do not support these assumptions, but rather suggest that these men are marginalised, lonely, withdrawn and prone to psychological problems. Measures to reduce sex selection should include enforcement of existing legislation on sex-selection, and public awareness campaigns about the dangers of late abortion and gender imbalance., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Regulatory differences between countries are an important driver of the cross-border trade in assisted reproduction as people move to seek services unavailable in their home countries. The development of a lucrative global trade in non-medical sex selection needs to be considered in ethical debates over its availability. I suggest that depictions of non-medical sex selection as a means of 'family balancing' or supportive of reproductive autonomy serve to distance the technologies rhetorically from the gender stereotyping inherent in their use and the commodification upon which they depend. They construct new social categories such as the 'unbalanced' family, the pathologization of 'gender disappointment' and a limited and highly individualized definition of reproductive freedom that permits medical interventions on healthy bodies. Orientalism pervades ethical debate depicting non-medical sex selection in the West as more acceptable to practices in 'Asia'. A case study of the interconnections between Australia and Thailand highlights the global economy sustaining the practice., (Copyright © 2011 Reproductive Healthcare Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objectives: Conscientious refusal among physicians to provide medical care is known to exist. The prevalence of conscientious refusal in residents and behaviors surrounding moral objections is largely unknown. The purpose of this study was to identify the prevalence of moral objections among family medicine residents and faculty members and to identify beliefs and actions surrounding conscientious refusal., Methods: A Web-based survey was e-mailed to residents and faculty in six family medicine residency programs. Those respondents identifying a moral objection were asked about their beliefs and practices regarding disclosure and referral., Results: A total of 154 physicians responded (44.9% response rate).The majority reported a moral objection to at least one procedure with abortion for gender selection eliciting the largest number of moral objections (79.2%). Of the 14 procedures identified, at least four respondents (2.6%) reported an objection. The majority believed that a physician with a moral objection has a duty to disclose his or her objection to colleagues, but the majority had not done so. Resident and faculty physicians were generally felt to have the same right to refuse. Fifty-five percent of all respondents reported having participated in morally objectionable care based on medical futility., Conclusions: This study is the first to demonstrate the prevalence of moral objection to legally available medical procedures among family medicine residents and faculty. The survey responses demonstrate that conscientious objection exists and that there is support for physicians exercising moral objection in clinical practice, provided they engage in appropriate patient education and referral.

Introduction: The rapidly growing imbalance of the sex ratio at birth (SRB) in China since the late 1980s demonstrates that, despite an extensive official prohibition, sex-selective abortion has been widely practised there in the past two or three decades. Given the reality of 30-40 million missing females, China has a more challenging set of ethical and social policy issues to be addressed regarding sex-selective abortion than is the case in Western and many other countries., Sources of Data: This article is based on a search and review of Chinese and English-language literature, including several very recent books in Chinese on the imbalance of the sex ratio at birth in China. It also draws on first-hand information gathered from the author's extensive fieldwork on Chinese views and experiences of abortion., Areas of Agreement: The current female deficit is a real and serious problem in China-not a 'false alarm' as earlier alleged. It is a direct consequence of the widespread practice of sex-selective abortion and is chiefly caused by the strong socio-cultural preference for sons in China. Chinese academics-demographers and medical ethicists-in general agree with the official position that sex-selective abortion is morally wrong and should be legally prohibited., Areas of Controversy: Some critical voices, mainly in the English-language literature, have asked whether coercive state intervention in this area is ethically justifiable. Another controversial question is whether and to what degree China's ambitious and rigorous population control programme, widely known as the 'one child' policy, is a contributing factor to the phenomenon of millions of missing females., Areas Timely for Developing Research: Much further research on the ethical and social policy issues surrounding sex-selective abortion in the Chinese context needs to be done. Systematic quantitative and in-depth qualitative sociological investigations into Chinese people's attitudes toward the subject, and the role of medical professionals, are long overdue.

Introduction: Ultrasound is now part of routine care for pregnant women in Uganda, and is one of a range of techniques used in screening during pregnancy. However, it differs from most others screening procedures because it allows women to view their babies. Unfortunately, the recipients of this technology are seldom asked about it. This study aimed at finding out the knowledge, attitudes and practices of pregnant women towards prenatal sonography., Methods: The study was exploratory and descriptive, using interviewer-administered questionnaires. Thematic analysis was employed., Results: The health professionals interviewed discouraged the idea of disclosing fetal sex unless it is justifiably indicated for medical reasons. However, the women in this study supported the idea of being told the sex of the baby in order to plan for the necessary items they need., Conclusion: There is need for a policy to be made not to disclose fetal sex to parents as this raises numerous ethical concerns. Health workers, women and the general public need to be sensitized about the dangers of this practice as well.