Boy or girl? Best leave it to chance.

Navigation: Main page

Author: Unknown

SHOULD people be allowed to choose the sex of their babies? Attitudes in the US and the UK could hardly be more different. After a thorough review, which included consultation with the public, the UK's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority last year decided against any form of sex selection done purely for social reasons. Clinics offering techniques that sort sperm to increase the chances of having a boy or a girl, or a newer method called PGD in which embryos are sexed prior to implantation, can only perform these services if there is a medical reason to justify the treatment .

In the US it is a different story. There is no official policy in place, and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine has issued a loose, voluntary code that basically sanctions the use of sperm selection for so-called "family balancing", while discouraging the use of PGD for the same purpose. The vagueness is not accidental, though; it is a matter of pride. In the US the government does not interfere with the reproductive rights of individuals, says a spokesman for the society.

In principle, this is a good thing. With the bitter lessons learned from the days of eugenics and the Nazi atrocities, history has taught us that it is not fruitful for society to decide who has the right to reproduce and how. Except that the issue of sex selection isn't really about the state interfering with people's natural freedom to procreate: in nature's reproductive roulette, nobody is inherently entitled to choose in advance the sex of their child. Increasingly, reproductive science is taking us beyond the limits of nature. On the grounds of safety and the unknown societal impact such novel technologies could have, governments surely have a responsibility to regulate. Needless meddling is never good, but in this case drawing the line as to who can use the technology might be the least intrusive move of all.