Sex selection technology: ethical, social, and medical implications

¶ … Parents be Allowed to Choose their Baby's Gender?

THE TWO SIDES

Should Parents be Allowed to Choose their Baby's Gender?

A revolutionary lab technique, called sperm sorting, can now establish the gender of an offspring (Mail Online, 2013). The sperm carries the sex chromosome of a future child and sorting involves choosing the desired sex chromosome and then inseminating a woman with it. Gender can also be selected by abortion and before the embryonic stage through IVF or in vitro fertilization. Gender selection has been the subject of much debate because of its many consequences (Mail Online).

Artificial insemination consists of inserting concentrated sperm into the uterus to achieve a greater chance of fertilization (Stephens, 2011). Other methods are used to choose the gender of the baby. One is by using a dye on the desired gender from the sperm and then returning the dyed cell into womb. The Ericsson method identifies the desired sex cell in the sperm, sorts it out and then re-inserted into the womb. The Whelan method deals with timing intercourse according to the desired gender. This $4 billion assisted reproductive technique, however, has caused fiery contention. It has raised moral questions, financial concerns, and health issues (Stephens). Expert answers are needed to address these multiple issues.

The Objections

This procedure, technically known as pre-implantation genetic diagnosis or PGD, screens embryos for non-medical characteristics, which include gender (Dahl, 2003). This aspect is what has invited a number of objections (Robertson, 2003). One is that PGD is designed to detect genetic disorders and gender preference is not a disorder. Another is the possibility of moral conflict if the procedure destroys a living sperm in the process. A third says that a State, which permits PGD to allow or insure only the birth of heterosexual babies is an act of discrimination against homosexual citizens. A further objection to the third is that the parents will be discriminating against homosexuality itself. The fifth is that PGD will discourage the growth of the gay and lesbian population. The sixth is that the procedure discards living embryos with lives of their own. One more objection relates to the cost involved. A single round of IVF is said to cost an average of $12,400 excluding other procedures and which are usually not covered by insurance, and doctor's fees. It is also time-consuming. And the last is the loss of excitement surrounding the gender of a new offspring (Dahl).

Concurrences

Health is a foremost reason for approving, using or endorsing PGIG (Stephens, 2011).

Some diseases or health conditions pass on from a parent to an offspring of a specific gender. Examples are hemophilia and Duchenne's muscular dystrophy. Gender selection will prevent this transmission and being a carrier of the disease or health condition (Stephens).

Robertson (2003) analyzed the moral, social, and legal implications of PGD and then responded to the previously enumerated objections to the non-medical use of gender selection, such as determining the offspring's sexual orientation for him or her. But he clearly and strongly endorsed the use of PGD to determine an unborn offspring's gender.

To the objection that gender selection is not a disorder, which needs pre-determination,

Robertson refutes that practitioners have been used to providing services, which do not accord direct medical benefit but confer much personal value to those seeking it. Examples are breast enlargement, hair replacement, and cosmetic surgery, such as ultrasound-assisted liposuction. These uses have not been questioned or condemned for merely acquiescing to a lifestyle or personal preference (Robertson).

The second objection on the charge of discrimination against homosexual persons, Robertson (2003) responds that the right to use PGD is not the same as making PGD a duty to insure the birth of heterosexual children. Discrimination can occur only if and when the government itself compels the use of PGD. In response to the third objection, the preference for a heterosexual child over a homosexual child in using PGD is not necessarily a negative position against the worth of gay and lesbian persons. Parents who choose PGD to assure the birth of heterosexual children do so out of the desire for their children to get married, form their own families and have their own children. It is not morally wrong to desire that one's children should have the same sexual orientation as their parents (Robertson).

That PGD will discourage the growth of the gay and lesbian population is not likely because of the high cost of the procedure (Robertson, 2003). If any, PGD will reduce the heterosexual population on account of cost and the tediousness of the procedure. Furthermore, a reduction in the gay and lesbian population does not indicate a reduction in concern for them. This can be compared to the case of disabled persons. Their number has decreased but support for them has increased. Hence, PGD cannot be responsible for any reduction in the population or welfare of homosexual people. And the last objection, which relates to the discard of living embryos, Robertson (2003) expressed doubts about these embryos' intrinsic human rights comparable to viable human beings. Human rights deal with the moral and legal protection of the basic interests of a human being. An embryo is too rudimentary in its stage of development to possess any the same interests as full-grown persons. He does not see embryos as possessing those rights. He sees only some "symbolic value" as prohibiting or contesting their destruction at the lab. If the desire to have children of a preferred sexual orientation is morally legitimate, then the destruction of embryos to achieve this morally legitimate goal should also be valid or justified (Robertson).

Robertson (2003), in his replies to all the objections, sees no obstacle for parents to opt for the use pf PGD in choosing the gender or sexual orientation of their offspring. He only recommends that they should be allowed to insure the birth of either heterosexual or homosexual children (Robertson).

Conclusion

Science has vastly expanded provisions for health and personal endowments.

PGD is among those endowments and miracles in current time. Robertson's replies to all the objections serve as basis for the choice parents must make as regards the gender or gender preference of their future offspring. That privilege and freedom are the foremost factors to the decision. Unbiased opinions and sentiments are also helpful. Other factors to consider are financial, emotional and moral in nature. Parents should secure the expert opinion and guidance of an OBGyn and other practitioners specializing in advanced reproductive techniques for updated info and their separate opinions.

Embryo screening for gender or gender orientation eventually can become acceptable or unacceptable, depending on parents' whose need is served or any eventual harm that may accrue on living embryos, children and society-at-large. Potential uses should not bar those who find its current use acceptable.