LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Burgess, Michael M.; Williams-Jones, Bryn; Cardiff University (2004)
Publisher: Cardiff University
Languages: English
Types: Book
Subjects: H1
Legal prohibitions are often simple responses to highly complex ethical and social problems. Recommendations for legal prohibition of prenatal sex-selection distinguish between testing for sex and for disabling conditions. This distinction appears to be based on an objective difference between gender and disease or conditions that are themselves causes of suffering. But ethical analysis reveals symmetry between these two cases, challenging whether the law is responding to differences in the nature of the test, or to social pressures against discrimination that are better developed with respect to sexism than is the case for disability discrimination. This paper argues that the strongest position against sex-selection is based on a rejection of the parental assessment that a person’s sex seriously compromises quality of life together with the dedication of social resources to minimize discrimination based on sex. Some genetic conditions produce disabilities that cannot be alleviated through improved social circumstances; the reasons for not restricting prenatal testing and termination as an option for parents for these conditions are distinguishable from those supporting prohibition of sex-selection. However, the severity and lack of predictability of disability associated with other genetic conditions are strongly contingent on social circumstances. Thus it may be reasonable to acknowledge that serious social reforms are required while at the same time supporting parental assessment of quality of life through testing and termination. But problems to do with the aggregate effects of individual parental choices, together with the need to work toward more supportive social circumstances, emphasize the importance of involving persons with disabilities and their spokespersons in evaluating social circumstances, disability discrimination, appropriate prenatal testing and related information to support parental decisions.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Bassett, K., P.M. Lee, C.J. Green, L. Mitchell, H. Sroka, R. Lal, R. Hanvelt, and A. Kazanjian. 2000. Triple-Marker Screening in British Columbia: Current Practices, Future Options (Vancouver, B.C.: BC Office of Health Technology Assessment).
    • Buchanan, A., D.W. Brock, N. Daniels, and D. Wikler. 2000. From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice. (New York: Cambridge University Press).
    • Canadian College of Medical Geneticists and the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. 1993. “Canadian guidelines for prenatal diagnosis of genetic disorders: An update” Journal of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada March Supplement, p. 15-38.
    • Clark, L.R. 1985. “Sex Preselection: The Advent of Made-to-order Children” The Pharos Fall, p. 2-7.
    • Coombs, C. 1977. “The preference for sex of children among U.S. couples” Family Planning Perspectives 9 (6), p. 259-265.
    • Dahl, E., K.D. Hinsch, M. Beutel, and B. Brosig. 2003. “Preconception sex selection for non-medical reasons: A representative survey from the UK” Human Reproduction 18 (10), p. 2238-9.
    • Dahl, E., K.D. Hinsch, B. Brosig, and M. Beutel. 2004. “Attitudes towards preconception sex selection: a representative survey from Germany” Reproductive Biomedicine Online 9 (6), p. 600-603.
    • Dixon, R.D., and D.E. Levy. 1985. “Sex of children: A community analysis of preferences and predetermination attitudes” The Sociological Quarterly 26 (2), p. 251-271.
    • Drake, H., M. Reid, and Marteau. 1996. “Attitudes towards termination for fetal abnormality: Comparisons in three European countries” Clinical Genetics 49, p. 134-140.
    • Dunne, C., and C. Warren. 1998. “Lethal autonomy: The malfunction of the informed consent mechanism within the context of prenatal diagnosis of genetic variants” Issues in Law & Medicine 14 (2), p. 165-202.
    • Elkins, T.E., and D. Brown. 1995. “Ethical concerns and future directions in maternal screening for Down Syndrome” Women's Health Issues 5 (1), p. 15-19.
    • Fletcher, J.C. 1980. “Ethics and amniocentesis for fetal sex identification” Hastings Center Report 10, p. 15-18.
    • Gargan, E. 1991. “Ultrasonic tests skew ratio of births in India” New York Times, June 13.
    • Gilroy, F., and R. Steinbacher. 1983. “Preselection of child's sex: Technological utilization and feminism” Psychological Reports 53, p. 671-676.
    • Glover, N.M., and S.J. Glo ver. 1996. “Ethical and legal issues regarding selective abortion of fetuses with Down Syndrome” Mental Retardation 34 (4), p. 207- 214.
    • House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK). 2005. Human Reproductive Technologies and the Law(London, (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmsctech/7/70 2.htm) [accessed: April 19, 2005].
    • Kaplan, D. 1993. “Prenatal screening and its impact on persons with disabilities” Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy 8 (suppl 1), p. 64-69.
    • Kazazian, H.H. 1980. “Prenatal diagnosis for sex choice: A medical review” Hastings Center Report 10, p. 17-18.
    • Kitcher, P. 1996. The Lives to Come. (New York: Simon and Schuster).
    • Knoppers, B.M., and R.M. Isasi. 2004. “Regulatory approaches to reproductive genetic testing” Human Reproduction 19 (12), p. 2695-2701.
    • Kolker, A., and M. Burke. 1994. Prenatal Testing: A Sociological Perspective. (London: Bergin & Garvey).
    • Kristoff, N.C. 1993. “Peasants of China discover new way to weed out girls” New York Times, July 21, p. A1, A4.
    • Kumm, J., K.N. Laland, and M.W. Feldman. 1994. “Gene-culture coevoluation and sex ratios: The effects of infanticide, sex-selective abortion, sex selection, and sex-biased parental investment on the evolution of sex ratios” Theoretical Population Biology 46, p. 249-278.
    • Lippman, A. 1989. “Prenatal diagnosis: Reproductive choice? Reproductive control?” In The Future of Human Reproduction, edited by C. Overall. (Toronto: The Women's Press), p. 182-194.
    • Markle, G.E., and C.B. Nam. 1971. “Sex predetermination: Its impact on fertility” Social Biology 18 (1), p. 73-83.
    • Mennuti, M. 1996. “A 35-year-old pregnant woman considering maternal serum screening and amniocentesis” JAMA 275 (18), p. 1440-1446.
    • Mudur, G. 1999. “Indian medical authorities act on antenatal sex selection” BMJ 319 (7207), p. 401-, (http://bmj.com).
    • Nelkin, D., and S. Lindee. 1997. “The revival of eugenics in American popular culture” JAMWA 52 (1), p. 45-46.
    • Patel, S. 1991. “The dilemma of Sex-Selection: The Issue in India” Perspectives in Genetic Counseling 13 (2).
    • Rothman, B.K. 1986. The Tentative Pregnancy. (New York: Viking Press).
    • Savulescu, J. 1999. “Sex selection: The case for” Medical Journal of Australia 171, p. 373-375.
    • Savulescu, J., and E. Dahl. 2000. “Sex selection and preimplantation diagnosis” Human Reproduction 15 (9), p. 1879-1880.
    • Thompson, M.W., R.R. McInnes, and H.F. Willard. 1991. Thompson & Thompson: Genetics in Medicine. 5 ed. (Toronto: W.B. Saunders Co.).
    • Walker, M.K. 1992. “Maternal reactions to fetal sex” Health Care for Women International 13 (3), p. 293-302.
    • Wertz, D.C., and J.C. Fletcher. 1989. “Fatal knowledge? Prenatal diagnosis and sex selection” Hastings Center Report 19 (3), p. 21-27.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article