Abstract
The promise of medical innovation has long evoked social commentary, particularly when personal reproductive autonomy may be involved. Development of the oral contraceptive, effective and safe surgical sterilization, and later IVF and ICSI are among the revolutionary developments where the initial reactions were dubious but were accorded mainstream status with sufficient clinical experience. In each instance, debate about the moral and social implications of these treatments accompanied their introduction into the medical marketplace. This pattern appears to be repeating itself in connection with the use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) for elective sex selection of human embryos. As with prior challenges in reproductive medicine, the development of meaningful “guidelines” for this latest controversy has proven to be a contentious task. Indeed, the progression of ethics committee reports from the Society for Reproductive Medicine seems to echo the ambivalence within society at large regarding this issue. In this report, we chronicle sex selection claims based on sperm sorting, and describe how flow cytometry and especially PGD have facilitated this selection at the gamete and embryo stage, respectively. In doing so, we also explore market forces and practitioner considerations associated with the application of PGD for this; related ethical issues with particular emphasis on the progeny derived from such treatment are also.
Keywords: Ethics, IVF, PGD, sex selection
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (52.2 KB).
REFERENCES
- 1.Sills ES, Kirman I, Thatcher SS, III, Palermo GD. Sex selection of human spermatozoa: Evolution of current techniques and applications. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 1998;261:109–115. doi: 10.1007/s004040050209. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Guyer MF. Accessory chromosomes in man. Biol Bull. 1910;19:219. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Avery OT, MacLeod CM, McCarty M. Studies on the chemical nature of the substance inducing transformation of pneumococcal types. Induction of transformation by a deoxyribonucleic acid fraction isolated from pneumococcus Type III. J Exp Med. 1944;79:137. doi: 10.1084/jem.79.2.137. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Zech L. Investigation of metaphase chromosomes with DNA binding fluorochromes (abstract) Exp Cell Res. 1969;58:463. doi: 10.1016/0014-4827(69)90124-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Mudd EBH, Mudd S, Keltch AK. Effect of echnid egg-waters on the surface potential difference of the sperm. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1929;26:392–394. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Bennett D, Boyse EA. Sex ratio in progeny of mice inseminated with sperm treated with H-Y anti-serum. Nature. 1973;246:308–309. doi: 10.1038/246308a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Zavos PM. Preconception sex determination via intra-vaginal administration of H-Y antisera in rabbits. Theriogenology. 1983;20:231–240. [Google Scholar]
- 8.Sills ES, Kirman I, Colombero LT, Hariprashad J, Rosenwaks Z, Palermo GD. H-Y antigen expression patterns in human X-and Y-chromosome bearing spermatozoa. Am J Reprod Immunol. 1998;40:43–47. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0897.1998.tb00387.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Fulwyler MJ. Electronic separation of biological cells by volume. Science. 1965;150:910. doi: 10.1126/science.150.3698.910. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Kamentsky LA, Melamed RR. Spectrophotometric cell sorter. Science. 1967;156:1364–1365. doi: 10.1126/science.156.3780.1364. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Fugger EF, Black SH, Keyvanfar K, Schulman JD. Births of normal daughters after MicroSort sperm separation and intrauterine insemination, in vitro fertilization, or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod. 1998;13:2367–2370. doi: 10.1093/humrep/13.9.2367. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Handyside AH, Kontogianni E, Hardy K, Winston RML. Pregnancies from human preimplantation embryos sexed by Y-specific DNA amplification. Nature. 1990;334:768–770. doi: 10.1038/344768a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Sills ES, Goldschlag D, Levy DP, Davis OK, Rosenwaks Z. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: Considerations for use in elective human embryo sex selection. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1999;16:509–511. doi: 10.1023/A:1020588902509. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Liu P, Rose GA. Social aspects of >800 couples coming forward for gender selection of their children. Hum Reprod. 1995;10:968–971. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a136072. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Pennings G. Family balancing as a morally acceptable application of sex selection. Hum Reprod. 1996;11:2339–2345. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a019109. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Savulescu J. Sex selection–The case for. Med J Aust. 1999;171:373–375. doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.1999.tb123697.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Malpani A. PGD and sex selection. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:517. doi: 10.1093/humrep/17.2.517. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Dawson K, Trounson A. Ethics of sex selection for family balancing–why balance families? Hum Reprod. 1996;11:2577–2578. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a019171. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Screening and Counseling for Genetic Conditions. Washington, DC: USGPO; 1983. [Google Scholar]
- 20.Population and Development; New York: United Nations; 1995. pp. 20–21. [Google Scholar]
- 21.Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Preconception gender selection for nonmedical reasons. Fertil Steril. 2001;75:861–864. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(01)01756-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Overall C. Ethics and Human Reproduction. Boston: Allen and Unwin; 1987. p. 27. [Google Scholar]
- 23.Siebel MM, Glazier S, Zilberstein M. Gender distribution–not sex selection. Hum Reprod. 1994;9:569–570. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a138550. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Ecozcue J, Santalo J, Gimenez C, Perez N, Vidal F. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2000;166:21–25. doi: 10.1016/s0303-7207(00)00293-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Sex selection. In Ethics in Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington, DC, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 2002, p 86
- 26.Sills ES, Strider W, Hyde HJ, Anker D, Rees GJ, Davis OK. Gynaecology, forced sterilisation, and asylum in the USA. Lancet. 1998;351:1729–1730. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)30023-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]