The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill 2007-8
Briefings from the Christian Medical Fellowship
Background
Sex selection may be considered for either social or medical reasons and there are three stages at which it can be performed. Sex selection by PGD at embryo stage currently has to be approved by the HFEA and the Bill maintains the ban on sex selection for non-medical reasons such as 'family balancing'. However, there are always ethical concerns about sex selection.
Sex selection for social reasons
Parents may wish to 'balance' their family – eg already having a boy they may want a girl to complete a family of two children, or vice-versa. In some cultures males are favoured over females, and in China, which only allows one child per couple, there is a definite bias towards boys. Some parents may wish to replace a lost child and this raises more emotive issues still.
Sex selection for medical reasons
Some genetic diseases are 'sex-linked'. Females (with another normal X chromosome so there are no clinical effects) are therefore carriers, while males (with a Y chromosome alongside their X one) have clinical disease. These diseases may be mild (eg degrees of familial red-green colour blindness) or more serious (eg haemophilia) or definitely incompatible with a normal lifespan (eg Duchenne muscular dystrophy).
Methods of sex selection
- Sperm sorting is reasonably reliable at separating sperm which will produce by artificial insemination a female (91% probability) or a male (76%).
- PGD – from a number of embryos in the laboratory, only those of the desired sex are selected for implantation, and the others are discarded.
- Abortion/infanticide – intra-uterine tests such as ultrasound lead to aborting babies of the 'wrong' sex, or there may be infanticide at birth. In China there are 117 boys to every 100 girls and in India 130 boys per 100 girls.
CMF policy
CMF welcomes the fact that the Bill maintains the ban on sex selection for non-medical reasons such as 'family balancing', and extends the ban to sperm sorting techniques, but even where carried out for medical reasons, sex selection devalues the vulnerable. Children deserve unconditional acceptance for who they are rather than being chosen by gender. There is a difference between screening aimed at identifying individuals for treatment and screening aimed at eliminating those individuals. All moves towards 'designer babies' should be resisted.
Resources
