Attitudes towards sex selection for non-medical reasons: A review

Prenatal Diagnosis

Volumn 26, Issue 7, 2006, Pages 619-626

  Hall, Sue ^a   Reid, Erin ^a   Marteau, Theresa M ^a  

^a KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Atitudes; Review; Sex selection

Indexed keywords

ATTITUDE TO SEXUALITY; CITATION ANALYSIS; DATA BASE; GERMANY; INTERNET; LITERATURE; NON INVASIVE MEASUREMENT; PREGNANCY TERMINATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE STUDY; REVIEW; SEX ALLOCATION; SEX DIAGNOSIS; UNITED KINGDOM; UNITED STATES;

ATTITUDE; DATA COLLECTION; FEMALE; GERMANY; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; MALE; PREGNANCY; SEX DETERMINATION (ANALYSIS); SEX DETERMINATION ANALYSIS; SEX PRESELECTION; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33746630130     PISSN: 01973851     EISSN: 10970223     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pd.1472     Document Type: Review

References (36)

1. Chan CI, Blythe E, Chan CH. 2006. Attitudes to and practices regarding sex selection in China. Prenat Diagn 26: 610-613.
2. Clark IR. 1985. Sex preselection: the advent of the made-to-order child. Pharos Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Med Soc 48: 2-7.
3. Dahl E. 2005. Preconception gender selection: a threat to the natural sex ratio? Reprod Biomed Online 10: (Supp. 1): 116-118.
4. Dahl E, Beutel M, Brosig B, Hinsch KD. 2003a. Preconception sex selection for non-medical reasons: a representative survey from Germany. Hum Reprod 18: 2231-2234.
5. Dahl E, Hinsch KD, Beutel M, Brosig B. 2003b. Preconception sex selection for non-medical reasons: a representative survey from the UK. Hum Reprod 18: 2238-2239.
6. Dahl E, Hinsch KD, Brosig B, Beutel M. 2004. Attitudes towards preconception sex selection: a representative survey from Germany. Reprod Biomed Online 9: 600-603.
7. Dixon RD, Levy DE. 1985. Sex of children: a community analysis of preferences and pre-determination attitudes. Social Q 26: 251-271.
8. Eysenck HJ. 1995. Problems with meta-analysis. In Systematic Reviews, Chalmers I, Altman DG (eds). BMJ: London.
9. Feil RN, Largey GP, Miller M. 1984. Attitudes toward abortion as a means of sex selection. J Psychol 116: 269-272.
10. Fidell L, Hoffman D, Keith-Spiegel P. 1979. Some social implications of sex-choice technology. Psychol Women Q 4: 32-42.
11. George SM. 2006. Millions of missing girls: from foetal sexing to high tech sex selection in India. Prenat Diagn 26: 604-609.
12. Gilroy F, Steinbacher R. 1983. Preselection of child's sex: technological utilization and feminism. Psychol Rep 53: 671-676.
13. Gilroy F, Steinbacher R. 1991. Sex selection technology utilization: further implications for sex ratio imbalance. Soc Biol 38: 285-288.
14. Goldberg C. 2005. Test reveals gender early in pregnancy: ethicists fear use in sex selection. Boston Globe 27 June.
15. Hank K, Kohler HP. 2000. Gender preferences for children in Europe: empirical results from 17 FFS countries. Demogr Res www.demographic-research. Org/Volumes/Vol2/1.
16. Hartley SF, Pietraczyk LM. 1979. Pre selecting the sex of offspring technologies attitudes and implications. Soc Biol 26: 232-246.
17. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. 2005. Human Reproductive Technologies and the Law. The Stationery Office: London.
18. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. 2005. Sex Selection: Options for Regulation. HFEA: London.
19. Jain T, Missmer SA, Gupta RS, Hornstein MD. 2005. Preimplantation sex selection demand and preferences in an infertility population. Fertil Steril 83: 649-658.
20. Kaiser J. 2005. An earlier look at baby's genes. Science 309: 1476-1478.
21. Kolker A, Burke BM. 1993. Sex preference and sex selection: attitudes of prenatal diagnosis clients. Res Social Health Care 10: 213-231.
22. Liu P, Rose GA. 1995. Social aspects of >800 couples coming forward for gender selection of their children. Hum Reprod 10: 968-971.
23. Markle GE, Nam CB. 1971. Sex predetermination: its impact on fertility? Soc Biol 18: 73-83.
24. Meister U, Finck C, Stöbel-Richter Y, Schmutzer G, Brähler E. 2004. Knowledge and attitudes towards preimplantation genetic diagnosis in Germany. Hum Reprod 20: 231-238.
25. Newiss H. 2006. Laws on fetal sexing: are they the answer? Prenat Diagn 26: 627-630.
26. Pebley AR, Westoff CF. 1982. Women's sex preferences in the United States: 1970 to 1975. Demography 19: 177-189.
27. Powledge TM. 1979. Prenatal diagnosis: new techniques, new questions. Hastings Cent Rep 9: 16-17.
28. Sell RR, Roghmann KJ, Doherty RA. 1978. Attitudes toward abortion and prenatal diagnosis of fetal abnormalities: implications for educational programs. Soc Biol 25: 288-301.
29. Singer E. 1991. Public attitudes toward genetic testing. Popul Res Policy Rev 10: 235-255.
30. Statham H, Green J, Snowdon C, France-Dawson M. 1993. Choice of baby's sex. Lancet 341: 564-565.
31. Steinbacher R, Gilroy FD. 1985. Preference for sex of child among primiparous women. J Psychol 119: 541-547.
32. Steinbacher R, Gilroy F. 1990. Sex selection technology: a prediction of its use and effect. J Psychol 124: 283-288.
33. Swetkis D, Gilroy F, Steinbacher R. 2002. Firstborn preference and attitudes toward using sex selection technology. J Genet Psychol 163: 228-238.
34. Van Balen F. 2006. Attitudes towards sex selection in the western world. Prenat Diagn 26: 614-618.
35. Van Balen F, Inhorn MC. 2003. Son preference, sex selection, and the "new" new reproductive technologies. Int J Health Serv 33: 235-252.
36. Westoff CF, Rindfuss RR. 1974. Sex preselection in the United States: some implications. Science 184: 633-636.