Fertility and Sterility
Volume 93, Issue 7 , Pages 2107-2114 , 1 May 2010

The ethics of sex selection: a comparison of the attitudes and experiences of primary care physicians and physician providers of clinical sex selection services

  • Sunita Puri, M.S.

      Affiliations

    • School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, California
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: Sunita Puri, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA (FAX: 415-502-5208).
    • ,
  • Robert D. Nachtigall, M.D.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, California

Received 17 November 2008 ,Revised 3 February 2009 ,Accepted 14 February 2009.

References 

  1. Sen A. Missing women. BMJ. 1992;304:586–587
  2. Avent ND, Chitty LS. Non-invasive diagnosis of fetal sex; utilisation of free fetal DNA in maternal plasma and ultrasound. Prenat Diagn. 2006;26:598–603
  3. MicroSort Website: http://www.microsort.net/results.php. Last accessed December 15, 2008.
  4. Ericsson Website: http://www.childselect.com/Literature.html. Last accessed December 15, 2008.
  5. Dahl E, Gupta RS, Beutel M, Stoebel-Richter Y, Brosig B, Tinneberg HR. Jain T Preconception sex selection demand and preferences in the United States. Fertil Steril. 2006;85:468–473
  6. Jain T, Missmer SA, Gupta RS, Hornstein MD. Preimplantation sex selection demand and preferences in an infertility population. Fertil Steril. 2005;83:649–658
  7. Committee on Ethics, American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 360: Sex selection. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109:475–478
  8. Ethics Committee of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine. Preconception Gender Selection for Non-Medical Reasons. Fert Steril. 2001;75:861–864
  9. Becker G. The elusive embryo: how men and women approach new reproductive technologies. Berkeley: University of California Press; 2000;
  10. Rapp R. Testing women, testing the fetus: the social impact of amniocentesis in America. New York: Routledge; 1999;
  11. Shehab D, Duff J, Pasch LA, Mac Dougall K, Scheib JE, Nachtigall RD. How parents whose children have been conceived with donor gametes make their disclosure decision: contexts, influences, and couple dynamics. Fertil Steril. 2008;89:179–187
  12. Nachtigall RD, Becker G, Friese C, Butler A, MacDougall K. Parents' conceptualization of their frozen embryos complicates the disposition decision. Fertil Steril. 2007;84:431–434
  13. Schensul SL, Schensul JJ, LeCompte MD. Essential ethnographic methods: observations, interviews, and questionnaires. Rowman Altamira; 1999;
  14. Beauchamp T, Childress J. Principles of walnut creek biomedical ethics. 5th ed.. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2001;
  15. Ehrich K, Williams C, Farsides B, Sandall J, Scott R. Choosing embryos: ethical complexity and relational autonomy in staff accounts of PGD. Sociol Health Illn. 2007;7:1091–1106
  16. Kalfoglou AL, Scott J, Hudson K. PGD patients' and providers' attitudes to the use and regulation of preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005;4:486–496
  17. Robertson J. Extending Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis: Medical and non-medical uses. J Medical Ethics. 2003;29:213–216
  18. Gleicher N, Barad DH. The choice of gender: is elective gender selection, indeed, sexist?. Hum Reprod. 2007;11:3038–3041
  19. Dahl E. Procreative liberty: the case for preconception sex selection. Reprod Biomed Online. 2003;4:380–384
  20. Hook EB. Prenatal sex selection and autonomous reproductive decision. [letter] The Lancet. 1994;343:55–56
  21. Khatamee MA, Leinberger-Sica A, Matos P, Weseley AC. Sex preselection in New York City: who chooses which sex and why. Intl J Fertil. 1989;5:353–354
  22. Liu P, Rose GA. Social aspects of > 800 couples coming forward for gender selection of their children. Hum Reprod. 1995;4:968–971
  23. Sauer MV. Gender selection: pressure from patients and industry should not alter our adherence to ethical guidelines. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191:1543–1545
  24. Dressler R. Cosmetic reproductive services and professional integrity. Am J Bioethics. 2001;1:11–12
  25. Dai J. Preconception sex selection: perspective of a person of the undesired gender. Am J Bioethics. 2001;1:37–38
  26. Kishwar M. When daughters are unwanted: sex determination in india. Manushi. 1995;86:15–22
  27. Dickens BM, Serour GI, Cook RJ, Qiu RZ. Sex selection: treating different cases differently. Int J Obst Gyn. 2005;90:171–177
  28. Strong C. Can't you control your children?. Am J Bioethics. 2001;1:11–13
  29. Dasgupta M. Selective discrimination against female children in rural Punjab, India. Popul Dev Rev. 1987;13:77–100
  30. Miller BD. The endangered sex: neglect of female children in rural North India. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1997;
  31. American Medical Association. Physician characteristics and distribution in the United States, 2008 edition.

 Supported by a Pathways to Careers in Clinical and Translational Research Research Fellowship granted through the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine.

 S.P. has nothing to disclose. R.D.N. has nothing to disclose.

PII: S0015-0282(09)00472-5

doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.02.053

Fertility and Sterility
Volume 93, Issue 7 , Pages 2107-2114 , 1 May 2010

Article Tools