Abstract
The promise of medical innovation has long evoked social commentary, particularly when personal reproductive autonomy may be involved. Development of the oral contraceptive, effective and safe surgical sterilization, and later IVF and ICSI are among the revolutionary developments where the initial reactions were dubious but were accorded mainstream status with sufficient clinical experience. In each instance, debate about the moral and social implications of these treatments accompanied their introduction into the medical marketplace. This pattern appears to be repeating itself in connection with the use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) for elective sex selection of human embryos. As with prior challenges in reproductive medicine, the development of meaningful “guidelines” for this latest controversy has proven to be a contentious task. Indeed, the progression of ethics committee reports from the Society for Reproductive Medicine seems to echo the ambivalence within society at large regarding this issue. In this report, we chronicle sex selection claims based on sperm sorting, and describe how flow cytometry and especially PGD have facilitated this selection at the gamete and embryo stage, respectively. In doing so, we also explore market forces and practitioner considerations associated with the application of PGD for this; related ethical issues with particular emphasis on the progeny derived from such treatment are also.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Sills ES, Kirman I, Thatcher SS III, Palermo GD: Sex selection of human spermatozoa: Evolution of current techniques and applications. Arch Gynecol Obstet 1998;261:109–115
Guyer MF: Accessory chromosomes in man. Biol Bull 1910;19:219
Avery OT, MacLeod CM, McCarty M: Studies on the chemical nature of the substance inducing transformation of pneumococcal types. Induction of transformation by a deoxyribonucleic acid fraction isolated from pneumococcus Type III. J Exp Med 1944;79:137
Zech L: Investigation of metaphase chromosomes with DNA binding fluorochromes (abstract). Exp Cell Res 1969;58:463
Mudd EBH, Mudd S, Keltch AK: Effect of echnid egg-waters on the surface potential difference of the sperm. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 1929;26:392–394
Bennett D, Boyse EA: Sex ratio in progeny of mice inseminated with sperm treated with H-Y anti-serum. Nature 1973;246: 308–309
Zavos PM: Preconception sex determination via intra-vaginal administration of H-Y antisera in rabbits. Theriogenology 1983;20:231–240
Sills ES, Kirman I, Colombero LT, Hariprashad J, Rosenwaks Z, Palermo GD: H-Y antigen expression patterns in human X-and Y-chromosome bearing spermatozoa. Am J Reprod Immunol 1998;40:43–47
Fulwyler MJ: Electronic separation of biological cells by volume. Science 1965;150:910
Kamentsky LA, Melamed RR: Spectrophotometric cell sorter. Science 1967;156:1364–1365
Fugger EF, Black SH, Keyvanfar K, Schulman JD: Births of normal daughters after MicroSort sperm separation and intrauterine insemination, in vitro fertilization, or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod 1998;13:2367–2370
Handyside AH, Kontogianni E, Hardy K, Winston RML: Pregnancies from human preimplantation embryos sexed by Y-specific DNA amplification. Nature 1990;334:768–770
Sills ES, Goldschlag D, Levy DP, Davis OK, Rosenwaks Z: Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: Considerations for use in elective human embryo sex selection. J Assist Reprod Genet 1999;16:509–511
Liu P, Rose GA: Social aspects of >800 couples coming forward for gender selection of their children. Hum Reprod 1995;10:968–971
Pennings G: Family balancing as a morally acceptable application of sex selection. Hum Reprod 1996;11:2339–2345
Savulescu J: Sex selection–The case for. Med J Aust 1999;171:373–375
Malpani A: PGD and sex selection. Hum Reprod 2002;17:517
Dawson K, Trounson A: Ethics of sex selection for family balancing–why balance families? Hum Reprod 1996;11: 2577–2578
President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research: Screening and Counseling for Genetic Conditions. Washington, DC, USGPO, 1983
United Nations: Population and Development. Vol. 1: Programme of Action Adopted at the International Conference on Population and Development (Cairo, 5-13 September 1994). New York, United Nations, 1995, pp 20–21
Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Preconception gender selection for nonmedical reasons. Fertil Steril 2001;75:861–864
Overall C: Ethics and Human Reproduction. Boston, Allen and Unwin, 1987, p 27
Siebel MM, Glazier S, Zilberstein M: Gender distribution–not sex selection. Hum Reprod 1994;9:569–570
Ecozcue J, Santalo J, Gimenez C, Perez N, Vidal F: Preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Mol Cell Endocrinol 2000;166: 21–25
Sex selection. In Ethics in Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington, DC, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 2002, p 86
Sills ES, Strider W, Hyde HJ, Anker D, Rees GJ, Davis OK: Gynaecology, forced sterilisation, and asylum in the USA. Lancet 1998;351:1729–1730
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sills, E., Palermo, G.D. Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis for Elective Sex Selection, the IVF Market Economy, and the Child—Another Long Day's Journey into Night?. J Assist Reprod Genet 19, 433–437 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016819908612
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016819908612