Study finds little support for sex selection
Dr. Kirsty Horsey
Progress Educational Trust
A new UK study of peoples' attitudes towards social sex selection has found that 80 per cent believe that parents should not be allowed to choose their baby's sex, even for 'family balancing' reasons. The researchers, based at the Policy, Ethics and Life Sciences Unit at Newcastle University, questioned 48 members of the public and ten medical professionals. Study leader Tom Shakespeare said he was 'surprised' that those questioned were so vehemently against sex selection, the BBC News website reports.
The participants were asked their opinions after a discussion about the issues surrounding sex selection for non-medical reasons, also known as 'social' sex selection. The majority did not support this use of reproductive technology, even for couples who already have children of one sex, and want to have a child of the opposite gender. 'I was surprised by the results, but these were not 'off-the-cuff remarks', said Shakespeare, adding 'these were the results of considered views after an hour or two of discussion'.
Among the concerns raised by the group were that sex selection could send out the message that it is morally acceptable to have a strong preference for one sex over the other. Other participants felt that allowing couples to choose their babies' sex could turn children into 'consumer items' - one person said: 'Where does it actually stop? Do you stop at boys, girls, blonde hair, blue eyes, superior race?'.
Josephine Quintavalle, of the pro-life pressure group Comment on Reproductive Ethics (CORE), said that she was delighted by the findings, adding 'the public know where the limits should be and it gladdens my heart'. A spokesman for the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) said that the study reinforced the authority's own research that the UK public is not in favour of sex selection for social reasons.
All forms of sex selection for non-medical reasons are currently banned in the UK, following a 2003 ruling by the HFEA. Permitting sex selection for family balancing reasons was cautiously approved in a recent report by the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. Commenting on the Newcastle study, committee member and Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris said that opinion polls should not be allowed to affect policy making for others, adding 'the point about reproductive autonomy is not whether people think it is a good idea, but whether people themselves think it is such a bad idea that it would do harm'.
The UK Department of Health (DH) is seeking views on whether social sex selection (for family balancing reasons only) should be permitted, as part of its current review of the HFE Act. The public are invited to respond formally to the DH. BioNews readers and any other interested individuals are also invited to informally debate their views on family balancing now, on a DH-funded online discussion forum run by Progress Educational Trust the charity which publishes BioNews. Family balancing is being discussed in the 'Open Forum' area. Feedback from this time-limited website will be submitted to the DH after the public consultation closes on 25 November 2005. Your views are much valued and all are welcome to contribute.
________________________________________________________________
Baby blues
Would there really be any negative consequences if parents in countries like Britain were able to select the sex of their children? James Meek sorts the hard facts from the hyperbole...
Being able to choose the sex of children in advance is nothing new - parents undergoing IVF treatment for infertility have been able to cherry-pick male or female embryos for implantation at US clinics for some time - but the MicroSort machine, for the first time, brings gender selection within the reach of the masses.
MicroSort is a bit of a twee 21st century name - back in the 80s they would have called it something boastful like SpermMaster. It's an extraordinary gadget. A man's sperm sample is introduced into it and the sperm, about 12m on average, are dyed so that they fluoresce.
One by one, they are shot through the machine at 100mph; the minute difference in brightness between sperm carrying the smaller y (male) and larger x (female) chromosome is picked up, and the sexed sperm are diverted along different paths. The whole process takes several hours. The machine can be set for boys, in which case it is 72% accurate, or girls, where it is 92%.
There are two issues to think about with the MicroSort machine. One is how well it works. The other is: should it be used? On the technology, fertility expert Lord Winston has already raised the concern that sperm might be damaged during the selection procedure and cause potentially dangerous genetic mutations after the child is born.
The only answer to that so far - and it is quite a good one - is that almost 200 babies have been born already using MicroSort, with no sign of genetic damage. Nonetheless, sensible parents will want to wait for a few years until the technology has been proven on that score.
The other concern is the margin of error. Parents who are carriers of known sex-specific diseases - terrible inherited illnesses which only affect children of one sex - will still have to undergo IVF treatment, and have the embryos screened before implantation, to be absolutely sure that they are not going to have a child of the wrong gender.
The ethical issue is less complex than it seems at first sight. For all the talk of "designer babies", it has to be remembered that all babies are, to some extent, designed. Individuals do not procreate randomly: they choose their partners, and often choose the time of conception according to their own age and prosperity.
The "designer baby" scare is not about design per se but about attempts to design based on false science. It is becoming easier to select a baby's sex in advance; it is not possible, and never will be, to scientifically ensure that a child grows into a wonderful person.
The arguments against baby gender selection on the grounds that selected children will be more or less cherished than unselected, or that one gender is being discriminated against, have a hollow ring, at least in Britain.
Is there any evidence that, given easy and universally available gender selection, an imbalance between boys and girls in the population would grow up? If there is, the human fertilisation and embryology authority has yet to produce it. On the other hand, we all know that some parents are disappointed when a third, or fourth, or fifth child turns out to be the same sex as the others.
Common sense suggests that the diminished cherishing of multiple same sex siblings in a family which has children the natural way, is worse for society than any negative consequences which might flow from a big family that has artificially balanced the sexes.
There could be more problems in countries like China, where sons are traditionally valued more highly than daughters. But the technology is out in the open now; it's relatively cheap, would be hard to outlaw, and is coming soon to a clinic near you. There are interesting times ahead.
