Abstract
Scientific advances enable parents to choose the sex of their offspring. This innovative technology has confronted society with the need to decide whether what is possible is also permissible, and under what terms. The debate over sex selection invokes various important issues, including gender stereotypes, discrimination of women, personal and parental reproductive autonomy, abortion, and more. As a result, different societies have made different determinations, reflecting their particular circumstances, social norms, culture, history, and religion. While some abstain from any formal regulation, which in effect allows unrestricted practices in respect to sex selection, others enforce a strict prohibition. Israel has chosen an intermediate position, conforming to the prevailing prohibitive stance (in Europe and Canada for instance), but allowing for certain exceptions. The Israeli regulations represent an authentic resolution of the issue that demonstrates Israel’s unique, autonomous bioethics status among Western liberal democratic nations.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
Gamete denotes a single sperm and/or ovum.
- 3.
PGD involves removal of one cell from the developing pre-embryo, usually around day 3–6 after fertilization, for genetic testing. Among the tests performed (mainly for medical purposes), sex can be determined. PGD requires substantial expertise, is costly, and may not be available in all fertility clinics.
- 4.
This practice has an undetermined risk/benefit ratio. Following an FDA probe, MicroSort relocated its business outside the USA.
- 5.
This raises the question of the fate of the pre-embryos of the undesired sex. This issue is discussed below.
- 6.
In other words, PGD does not substantially reduce the chance of pregnancy by IVF.
- 7.
As PGD for non-medical reasons is expensive and not generally covered by health insurance plans or national health insurance, only wealthy parents are able to enjoy this technology, creating an access inequality.
- 8.
Examples of similar situations exist in medicine and healthcare, such as reconstructive surgery techniques which became the foundation of elective plastic surgery, a multi-billion dollar industry.
- 9.
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973); Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).
- 10.
Available at http://chdslsa.gov.in/right_menu/act/pdf/PNDT.pdf (last visited April 1, 2018).
- 11.
S. 5(1)(c), 2004.
- 12.
- 13.
Available at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/22/contents (last visited April 1, 2018).
- 14.
- 15.
A clear indication of the low interest of the vast majority of Israeli families in sex selection for non-medical reasons.
References
American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Ethics Committee. (2015). Use of reproductive technology for sex selection for nonmedical reasons. Fertility and Sterility, 103(6), 1418–1422.
Archer, J., & Lloyd, B. (2002). Sex and gender. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Birdsall, M. L. (2010). An exploration of “the ‘Wild West’ of reproductive technology”: Ethical and feminist perspectives on sex-selection practices in the United States. William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law, 17(1), 223–247.
Bongaarts, J., & Guilmoto, C. Z. (2015). How many more missing women? Excess female mortality and prenatal sex selection, 1970–2050. Population and Development Review, 41(2), 241–269.
Council of Europe. (1996). Convention for the protection of human rights and dignity of the human being with regard to the application of biology and medicine: Convention on human rights and biomedicine. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, Directorate of Legal Affairs.
Daar, J. F. (2005). ART and the search for perfectionism: On selecting gender, genes, and gametes. Journal of Gender, Race & Justice, 9, 241–272.
Dickens, B. M., Serour, G. I., Cook, R. J., & Qiu, R. Z. (2005). Sex selection: Treating different cases differently. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 90(2), 171–177.
Dondorp, W., de Wert, G., Bombard, Y., Bianchi, D. W., Bergmann, C., Borry, P. … Cornel, M. C. (2015). Non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy and beyond: Challenges of responsible innovation in prenatal screening. European Journal of Human Genetics, 23(11), 1438–1450.
Dondorp, W., de Wert, G., Pennings, G., Shenfield, F., Devroey, P., Tarlatzis, B. … Diedrich, K. (2013). ESHRE task force on ethics and Law 20: Sex selection for non-medical reasons. Human Reproduction, 28(6), 1448–1454.
English, V., & Braude, P. (2014). Regulation of PGD in the UK and Worldwide. In T. El-Toukhy & P. Braude (Eds.), Preimplantation genetic diagnosis in clinical practice (pp. 187–195). London: Springer.
Grech, V. (2017). Further evidence of male offspring preference for certain subgroups in the United States (2007–2015). Early Human Development, 110, 9–12.
Heyd, D. (2003). Male or female, we will create them: The ethics of sex selection for nonmedical reasons. Ethical Perspectives, 10(3–4), 204–214.
Ivey, R. (2009). Resolving the feminist dilemma: Is regulation of non-medical pre-implantation and pre-fertilization sex selection technologies necessary? Journal of Health Law and Bioethics, 2, i–xxxiv.
Kalfoglou, A. L., Kammersell, M., Philpott, S., & Dahl, E. (2013). Ethical arguments for and against sperm sorting for non-medical sex selection: A review. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 26(3), 231–239.
Landau, R. (2008). Sex selection for social purposes in Israel: Quest for the “perfect child” of a particular gender or centuries old prejudice against women? Journal of Medical Ethics, 34(9), e10.
Lewis, C., Hill, M., & Chitty, L. S. (2016). Women’s experiences and preferences for service delivery of non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy in a public health setting: A mixed methods study. PLoS ONE, 11(4), e0153147.
Mieszczak, J., Houk, C. P., & Lee, P. A. (2009). Assignment of the sex of rearing in the neonate with a disorder of sex development. Current Opinion in Pediatrics, 21(4), 541–547.
Moazam, F. (2004). Feminist discourse on sex screening and selective abortion of female foetuses. Bioethics, 18(3), 205–220.
Mohapatra, S. (2012). Global legal responses to prenatal gender identification and sex selection. Nevada Law Journal, 13(3), 690–721.
Norton, M. E., Jacobsson, B., Swamy, G. K., Laurent, L. C., Ranzini, A. C. Brar, H. … Wapner, R. J. (2015). Cell-free DNA analysis for noninvasive examination of trisomy. New England Journal of Medicine, 372(17), 1589–1597.
Oakley, A. (2016). Sex, gender and society. New York: Routledge.
Pennings, G. (1996). Ethics of sex selection for family balancing: Family balancing as a morally acceptable application of sex selection. Human Reproduction, 11(11), 2339–2342.
Pessach, N., Glasser, S., Soskolne, V., Barash, A., & Lerner-Geva, L. (2014). The Israeli National Committee for sex selection by pre-implantation genetic diagnosis: A novel approach (2005–2011). Israel Journal of Health Policy Research, 3, 33.
Puri, S., Adams, V., Ivey, S., & Nachtigall, R. D. (2011). “There is such a thing as too many daughters, but not too many sons”: A qualitative study of son preference and fetal sex selection among Indian immigrants in the United States. Social Science and Medicine, 72(7), 1169–1176.
Robertson, J. (2001). Preconception sex selection. American Journal of Bioethics, 1(1), 2–9.
Steinbock, B. (2002). Sex selection: Not obviously wrong. The Hastings Center Report, 32(1), 23–28.
Sureau, C. (1999). Sex selection: A crime against humanity or the exercise of a fundamental right? Human Reproduction, 14(4), 867–868.
Wherrett, D. K. (2015). Approach to the infant with a suspected disorder of sex development. Pediatric Clinics, 62(4), 983–999.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Aisha Haley JD, UVA Law School for her superb research assistance, and Saralee Glasser MA, from the Gertner Institute, for her constructive comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Siegal, G. (2019). Reproductive Autonomy: Sex Selection as a Defining Case Study. In: Taubman – Ben-Ari, O. (eds) Pathways and Barriers to Parenthood. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24864-2_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24864-2_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-24863-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-24864-2
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)