Ethical objections to sex selection for non-medical reasons

Reproductive BioMedicine Online

Volumn 16, Issue SUPPL. 1, 2008, Pages 41-45

  Blyth, Eric ^a   Frith, Lucy ^b   Crawshaw, Marilyn ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HUDDERSFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Ethics; Reproductive autonomy; Sex selection; Sexism

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; ETHICS; HUMAN; INFERTILITY THERAPY; MORALITY; SEX DETERMINATION; SEX DIFFERENTIATION; SEX RATIO; SEX SELECTION; SEXISM; SOCIAL ASPECT; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR;

EID: 41049100697     PISSN: 14726483     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60398-7     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Bahadur G 2005 Concerns of sex selection and regulation in the report on Human Reproductive Technologies and the Law. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 11, 13-14.
2. Baldwin T 2006 Understanding the opposition. Prenatal Diagnosis 26, 637-645.
3. Banister J 2004 Shortage of girls in China today. Journal of Population Research 21, 19-45.
4. Croll E 2004 Sex ratios at birth in China: an international perspective. Background Paper prepared for workshop on ethical, legal and social issues of sex ratio imbalance (0-4) in China. 27-28 June, Beijing.
5. Croll E 2000 Endangered Daughters: Discrimination and Development in Asia. Routledge, London.
6. Culley L 2004 In: House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. Human Reproductive Technologies and the Law. Fifth Report of Session 2004-05. Vol II. Oral and written evidence. Appendix 58. www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmsctech/7/7ii.pdf [accessed 23 January 2008].
7. Dahl E 2007 The 10 most common objections to sex-selection and why they are far from being conclusive: a Western perspective. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 14, 158-161.
8. Dahl E, Gupta R, Beutel M et al. 2006 Preconception sex selection demand and preferences in the United States. Fertility and Sterility 85 468-473.
9. Dahl E, Beutel M, Brosig B, Hinsch K-D 2003a Preconception sex selection for non-medical reasons: a representative survey from Germany. Human Reproduction 18, 2231-2234.
10. Dahl E, Hinsch K-D, Beutel M, Brosig B 2003b Preconception sex selection for non-medical reasons: a representative survey from the UK. Human Reproduction 18, 2238-2239.
11. Dai J 2001 Preconception Sex Selection: The perspective of a person of the undesired gender. American Journal of Bioethics 1, 37-38.
12. Ding QJ, Hesketh T 2006 Family size, fertility preferences, and sex ratio in China in the era of the one child family policy: results from national family planning and reproductive health survey. British Medical Journal 333, 371-373.
13. Equal Opportunities Commission 2007 The Gender Agenda. EOC, London.
14. Feinberg J 1973 Social Philosophy. Prentice Hall, Engelwood Cliffs, NJ.
15. Hank C, Kohler H-P 2000 Gender preferences for children in Europe: empirical results from 17 countries. Demographic Research 2, 1-21.
16. Harris J 2004 On Cloning: Thinking in Action. London, Routledge.
17. Heng BC 2006 Gender selection of embryos after PGD for other independent medical reasons - a viewpoint from Singapore. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 12, 392-393.
18. Hingorani V, Sheroff G 1995 Natural sex selection for safe motherhood and as a solution for population control. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 50, S2, S169-S171.
19. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee 2005 Human Reproductive Technologies and the Law. Fifth Report of Session 2004-05. Vol I. www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/ cmsctech/7/7i.pdf [accessed 23 January 2008].
20. House of Lords and House of Commons Joint Committee on the Human Tissue and Embryos (Draft) Bill (2007) Human Tissue and Embryos (Draft) Bill Vol 1: Report. www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200607/ jtselect/jtembryos/169/169.pdf [accessed 23 January 2008].
21. Hughes D, Sporcic L, Mendelsohn N et al. 1999 Factbook on Global Sexual Exploitation. University of Rhode Island and the Norwegian Agency for Development Co-operation (NORAD). www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/ hughes/factbook.htm [accessed 23 January 2008].
22. Jackson E 2007 Rethinking the pre-conception welfare principle. In: Horsey K, Biggs H (eds) Human Fertilisation and Embryology: Reproducing Regulation. Routledge-Cavendish, London.
23. Jha P, Kumar R, Vasa P et al. 2006 Low male-to-female sex ratio of children born in India: national survey of 1-1 million households. The Lancet 367, 211-218.
24. Moazam F 2004 Feminist discourse on sex screening and selective abortion of female foetuses. Bioethics 18, 205-220.
25. O'Neill O 2006 'Reproductive autonomy' versus public good? Prenatal Diagnosis 26, 637-645.
26. Parfit D 1984 Reasons and Persons. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
27. Pennings G 1996 Family balancing as a morally acceptable application of sex selection. Human Reproduction 11, 2339-2343.
28. Project Group on Assisted Reproduction 2006 In: People Science and Policy Report on the Consultation on the Review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. People Science and Policy Ltd, London, 39. www.peoplescienceandpolicy.com/downloads/DH_consultation.pdf [accessed 23 January 2008].
29. Rhodes R 2001 Acceptable sex selection. American Journal of Bioethics 1, 31-32.
30. Richards M 2004 Human Reproductive Technologies and the Law. Fifth Report of Session 2004-05. Vol II. Oral and written evidence Appendix 66. Ev 364. www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmsctech/ 7/7ii.pdf [accessed 23 January 2008].
31. Robertson J 2001 Preconception gender selection. American Journal of Bioethics 1, 2-9.
32. Robertson J 1994 Children of Choice: Freedom and the New Reproductive Technologies. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
33. Savulescu J 2004 Human Reproductive Technologies and the Law. Fifth Report of Session 2004-05. Vol II. Oral and written evidence. Ev 103.
34. Savulescu J 1999 Sex selection: the case for. Medical Journal of Australia 171, 373-375. www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ cm200405/cmselect/cmsctech/7/7ii.pdf [accessed 23 January 2008].
35. Scully J, Shakespeare T, Banks S 2006 Gift not commodity? Lay people deliberating social sex selection. Sociology of Health and Illness 26, 749-767.
36. Seavilleklein V, Sherwin S 2007 The myth of the gendered chromosome: sex selection and the social interest. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 16, 7-19.
37. Shenfield F 2005 Procreative liberty, or collective responsibility? Comment on the House of Commons report Human Reproductive Technologies and the Law, and on Dahl's response. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 11, 155-157.
38. Steinbock B 2002 Sex-selection: Not obviously wrong. The Hastings Center Report 32, 23-28.
39. Strong C 2001 Can't you control your children? American Journal of Bioethics 1, 12-13.
40. Ten C 1998 The use of reproductive technologies in selecting the sexual orientation, the race, and the sex of children. Bioethics 12, 45-48.
41. United Nations Population Fund 2003 Missing: Mapping the Adverse Child Sex Ratio in India. UN.
42. van Balen F 2006 Attitudes towards sex selection in the Western world. Prenatal Diagnosis 25, 614-618.
43. Waldby C 2002 Literature Review and Annotated Bibliography: Social and Ethical Aspects of Sex Selection. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, London. http://www.hfea.gov.uk/docs/ Appendix_D_-_Social_and_Ethical_Literature_Review.pdf [accessed 25 January 2008].