Display options
Cite
de Wert G, Dondorp W. Preconception sex selection for non-medical and intermediate reasons: ethical reflections. Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2010;2(4):267-77
de Wert, G., & Dondorp, W. (2010). Preconception sex selection for non-medical and intermediate reasons: ethical reflections. Facts, views & vision in ObGyn, 2(4), 267-77.
de Wert, G, and Dondorp, W. "Preconception sex selection for non-medical and intermediate reasons: ethical reflections." Facts, views & vision in ObGyn vol. 2,4 (2010): 267-77.
de Wert G, Dondorp W. Preconception sex selection for non-medical and intermediate reasons: ethical reflections. Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2010;2(4):267-77. PMID: 25009714; PMCID: PMC4086011.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2010;2(4):267-77.

Preconception sex selection for non-medical and intermediate reasons: ethical reflections.

Facts, views & vision in ObGyn

G de Wert, W Dondorp

Affiliations

  1. Maastricht University, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Dept. Health, Ethics & Society, Research Institute GROW, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, the Netherlands.

PMID: 25009714 PMCID: PMC4086011

Abstract

Sex selection for non-medical reasons is forbidden in many countries. Focusing on preconception sex selection, the authors first observe that it is unclear what should count as a 'medical reason' in this context and argue for the existence of 'intermediate reasons' that do not fit well within the rigid distinction between 'medical'and 'non-medical'. The article further provides a critical review of the arguments for the prohibition of sex selection for non-medical reasons and finds that none of these are conclusive. The authors conclude that the ban should be reconsidered, but also that existing-- societal concerns about possible harmful effects should be taken seriously. Measures to this effect may include limiting the practice to couples who already have at least one child of the sex opposite to that which they now want to select ('family balancing'). Finally, a difficult set of questions is raised by concerns about the reliability and unproven (long-term) safety of the only technology (flow cytometry) proven to work.

Keywords: Preconception sex selection; ethics; flow cytometry; non-medical reasons; regulation

References

  1. Reprod Biomed Online. 2004 Mar;8(3):270-1 - PubMed
  2. Reprod Biomed Online. 2003 Oct-Nov;7(4):380-4 - PubMed
  3. Reprod Biomed Online. 2004 Mar;8(3):272-4 - PubMed
  4. Reprod Biomed Online. 2004 Mar;8(3):266-7 - PubMed
  5. Hum Reprod. 1995 Apr;10(4):968-71 - PubMed
  6. J Med Ethics. 1997 Apr;23(2):120-1 - PubMed
  7. Eur J Hum Genet. 2010 Mar;18(3):272-7 - PubMed
  8. Hum Reprod. 2005 Dec;20(12):3261-6 - PubMed
  9. Fertil Steril. 2001 May;75(5):861-4 - PubMed
  10. Theriogenology. 2009 Jan 1;71(1):74-9 - PubMed
  11. Hum Reprod. 2007 Oct;22(10):2585-8 - PubMed
  12. Hum Reprod. 2008 Apr;23(4):729-34 - PubMed
  13. Theriogenology. 2009 Jan 1;71(1):11-21 - PubMed
  14. Hum Reprod Update. 2009 Jan-Feb;15(1):139-51 - PubMed
  15. Reprod Biomed Online. 2004 Mar;8(3):268-9 - PubMed
  16. Biol Reprod. 2008 Oct;79(4):594-7 - PubMed
  17. Biol Reprod. 2007 Feb;76(2):184-8 - PubMed
  18. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2006 Jul-Aug;23(7-8):311-8 - PubMed
  19. Mol Reprod Dev. 2007 Aug;74(8):931-40 - PubMed
  20. Hum Reprod. 1996 Nov;11(11):2339-43 - PubMed
  21. Med Law Rev. 2008 Autumn;16(3):369-89 - PubMed
  22. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2008 Apr;13(2):103-8 - PubMed

Publication Types