Abstract
Objectives
Surveys of the general population regarding sex selection using pre-implantation genetic diagnosis are limited and were mainly conducted in the United States and Northern Europe. In those Western societies, surveys have shown that people’s interest in using sex selection techniques is encouraged by the desire for a sexually balanced family. It is important to determine attitudes to sex selection in a wider range of countries especially that cultural differences exist among countries.
Study design
A questionnaire-based cross-sectional study regarding attitudes towards sex selection for non-medical reasons was designed. One thousand five hundred participants of the reproductive age group presenting to the Women s Health Center at the American University of Beirut Medical Center were offered to complete the survey. The questionnaire included demographic details, obstetric and infertility history, opinions regarding sex selection, personal interest in expanding the family, and personal interest in choosing the sex of a future child.
Results
The response rate was 86.6%. Nineteen per cent of the respondents considered it strictly prohibited, 38.8% considered the technique acceptable only if medically indicated while 33.4% believed that it should be available to all those who request it. Multivariate logistic regression on the predictors of the variable affecting the attitudes towards sex selection showed that the educational level, religious disapproval and the desire of the opposite sex of the already existing children were the only significant predictors.
Conclusion
The middle-eastern multi-religious population studied has a negative attitude towards sex selection through pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. Religion, educational status and desire of children of both genders were identified as the significant predictors of the decision whether to accept sex selection or not.
Keywords: Surveys and questionnaires, Sex preselection, Attitude, Humans
Introduction
The desire to control the sex of the offspring has been an issue for centuries and in different cultures [[1], [2], [3]]. It was not until the discovery and the advent of Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) that this desire became fulfillable with a high degree of precision [4,5]. PGD was developed initially to create disease-free offspring through assisted reproductive techniques. It was used to identify specific genetic disorders and therefore choose the non-affected embryos for transfer. However, the non-medical applications of PGD including sex selection of embryos for social or cultural reasons are growing [6]. Since such a practice poses serious moral, legal and social problems, it has become one of the most controversial issues in reproductive bioethics today. Objection to sex selection for nonmedical reasons is driven by the fear of a subsequent social sex imbalance, devaluation of women in the society and spread of the trend of ‘designer babies’ [7,8]. On the other hand, supporters argue that in Eastern cultures sex selection contributes to population control and helps relieve families from economic and social burdens. This results in freeing women from need to have many children, to illegally abort, or to abandon/neglect their daughters [9,10].
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) already state their opposition to sex selection for nonmedical reasons [8,11]. In contrast, the Ethics Committee of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) since 2001 has been stating that preconception sex selection for nonmedical purposes was ethically acceptable for providing a family with a child of a different sex than an existing child (gender variety), given that the sex selection methods used were safe and effective [12]. In 2015, the ASRM stated that practitioners who are willing to provide sex selection services are highly encouraged to properly counsel their patients about the anticipated pros and cons of the procedure. They also recommended that infertility clinics with such services have clear policies about the indications and the circumstances of non-medical sex selections [13]. Countries as well vary considerably in their regulation of nonmedical sex selection. While it is practiced in the US with 72.7 percent of the ART clinics offering sex selection, other countries, such as India and most European countries, ban it [14]. The United Kingdom recently outlawed any technique used for sex selection for nonmedical reasons, after public opinion polls found most respondents not in favor of such technology [15].
Surveys of the general population regarding sex selection using PGD are limited and were mainly conducted in the US and Northern Europe. In Western societies, surveys have shown that people’s interest in using sex selection techniques is encouraged by the desire for a sexually balanced family [16,17]. The United Kingdom interview survey revealed that 68 percent to 82% favored regulation of sex selection for nonmedical reasons while investigators in Germany found that 92% of the population was not interested in sex selection [18]. It is important however to determine the attitudes to sex selection in a wider range of countries especially that cultural differences do exist and that the findings of western surveys may not be applicable to other parts of the world such as the Middle Eastern societies.
Lebanon is a middle-eastern country that is well known worldwide for it’s cultural, ethnic and religious diversity. Add to that, sex selection is offered to patients in many Lebanese IVF centers. The demand for sex selection is on the rise from both locals and foreigners who visit Lebanon for that specific reason. However, the attitude of the population in the Middle East towards sex selection is not known. We performed a survey in Lebanon, a middle-eastern country, to define the attitude of the general population towards sex selection via PGD. We aimed to highlight the effect of such socio-religious diversity on the sex selection acceptance rates. Such information will be of great value in formulating ethical statements and health policies, as well as affecting clinical practice in the private and public assisted reproductive techniques sectors.
Materials and methods
Material
A cross-sectional study was designed where 1500 Male and female patients aged 18 years old and above presenting to the Women s Health Center at the American University of Beirut Medical Center (AUBMC) were offered to complete the survey.
Methods
The patients were approached during the period extending from January 1st, 2016 till September 30th, 2017 by a research assistant, and after explaining the purpose of the study and the complete anonymous nature of the survey, they were handed the questionnaire to fill. The patients were informed about their right to discontinue participation at any point in the study, and the option of not answering questions deemed sensitive or inappropriate. The questionnaire which contained no participant identifiers was available in two languages: Arabic and English as per the participants’ preference. It included the following items: demographic details (age, sex, religion, education, income, marital status, and region of residence), obstetric and infertility history, opinions regarding sex selection, personal interest in expanding the family, and personal interest in choosing the sex of a future child. Out of the 1500 patients approached, 1300 agreed to fill the questionnaire. The study protocol and questionnaires in both languages were approved by the Institutional Review Board of the American University of Beirut Medical Center. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 22 (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) for data cleaning, management and analyses. Descriptive statistics were summarized by presenting the number and percentage for categorical variables and mean and standard deviation (SD) for continuous variables. In the bivariate analysis, the association between the new technology and other categorical variables was carried out by using the chi-square and Fisher’s exact test, as appropriate. Student’s t-test was used for the association with continuous variables. Multivariate regression analysis was used to adjust for potentially confounding variables. A stepwise multivariate logistic regression was conducted with all factors found to be significant in the bivariate analysis in addition to those considered as being clinically meaningful. The results were presented by the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). P-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results
The demographic data of the respondents is presented in Table 1. One thousand three hundred of the 1500 participants filled the survey. The majority of the respondents was females (80.6%), Muslim (63.4%), was employed (58.7%), and had completed a university degree (83.1%). Thirty percent of the respondents had already been diagnosed with infertility and around 71.7% had already received some sort of infertility treatment in the form of IUI, IVF or a combination of both.
Table 1.
Demographic data and infertility history.
| Total N=1300 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Sex | Female | 1044 (80.6) |
| Male | 251 (19.4) | |
| Age group | 18-35 | 632 (62.0) |
| 36-45 | 224 (22.0) | |
| >45 | 163 (16.0) | |
| Religion | Christian | 334 (26.2) |
| Muslim | 808 (63.4) | |
| Druze | 111 (8.7) | |
| Others | 20 (1.6) | |
| Marital status | Married | 1019 (78.4) |
| Not married | 280 (21.6) | |
| Married | 1019 (78.4) | |
| Single | 238 (18.3) | |
| Widow | 17 (1.3) | |
| Divorced | 25 (1.9) | |
| Employment | Employed | 561 (58.7) |
| Unemployed | 395 (41.3) | |
| Education | Middle School | 52 (4.0) |
| High School | 165 (12.8) | |
| University | 1069 (83.1) | |
| Monthly income | 300-500$ | 104 (9.7) |
| 500-1000$ | 257 (24.1) | |
| 1000-2000$ | 461 (43.2) | |
| >3000$ | 246 (23.0) | |
| Address | Beirut area | 651 (51.7) |
| Out of Beirut | 608 (48.3) | |
| Infertility history | Yes | 384 (30.3) |
| No | 882 (69.7) | |
| Duration of infertility | 2-3 years | 43 (17.2) |
| 3-4 years | 51 (20.4) | |
| >4 years | 86 (34.4) | |
| Assisted reproduction | IUI | 49 (13.4) |
| IVF | 160 (43.8) | |
| Both IUI and IVF | 53 (14.5) | |
Note: Values are number of participants n (%).
Patients’ attitudes to sex selection per se are presented in Table 2. Around 79.5% accepted the procedure where 46.2% considered it a couple’s free choice while 53.8% supported performing sex selection exclusively for medically indicated situations. Playing God was the most common reason for not supporting sex selection as a free choice (38.6%). The belief that technology should be used as per couples’ wishes was the most selected reason for acceptance of sex selection (57.1%). When asked about the gender preference of their first child, 71.7% said they didn’t care. Add to that, 42.1% expressed their wishes of having an equal number of boys and girls. Only 20.1% would have performed sex selection despite religious disapproval and only 35% would use it even if it was for free. On the other hand, 41.6% expressed their acceptance to use it in order to have a gender different than already existing children.
Table 2.
Attitude characteristic.
| Total N=1300 | ||
|---|---|---|
| New reproductive technology | Yes | 919 (79.5) |
| No | 237 (18.6) | |
| Reasons for refusal: | 252 (35.0) | |
| A child is a gift | 278 (38.6) | |
| Playing god | 55 (7.6) | |
| Unnatural | ||
| Skewing the natural sex ratio | 51 (7.1) | |
| Sexist | 55 (7.6) | |
| Others | 29 (4.0) | |
| New reproductive technology - reasons | Reasons for acceptance: | |
| Right of the couples to use as they wish | 230 (57.1) | |
| Small and balanced family of both sexes | 152 (37.7) | |
| Don’t believe affect the sex ratio | 21 (5.2) | |
| Gender preferred of the first child | A boy | 185 (16.5) |
| A girl | 132 (11.8) | |
| Do not care | 802 (71.7) | |
| Only boys | 23 (1.9) | |
| Genders preferred of the children in the family | Only girls | 14 (1.1) |
| More boys than girls | 77 (6.2) | |
| More girls than boys | 54 (4.4) | |
| An equal number of boys and girls | 520 (42.1) | |
| Do not care | 548 (44.3) | |
| Will perform sex selection despite religious disapproval | Yes | 246 (20.1) |
| No | 978 (79.9) | |
| Acceptance of sex selection for opposite sex of already existing children | Yes | 512 (41.6) |
| No | 718 (58.4) | |
| Pay 5000$ for sex selection | Yes | 286 (23.2) |
| No | 945 (76.8) | |
| Perform sex selection for free | Yes | 423 (35.0) |
| No | 786 (65.0) | |
The acceptance rate between different religions, age groups and sexes wasn’t statistically significant (P = 0.08, 0.69 and 0.85 respectively). Married people were significantly less supportive of the sex selection technique when compared to the non-married single population with a p value of 0.02. Employed people, university attendees and participants with higher income accepted sex selection significantly more the non-employed, school attendees and lower income participants population (p = 0.003,<0.0001 and <0.0001 respectively). Infertility history wasn’t associated with significant difference however the duration of infertility of less than 4 years was associated with a significantly higher acceptance rate of sex selection (p = 0.01). The desire to have equal number of boys and girls was the main significant cause of sex selection (p = <0.0001) (Supplementary Table 1). Multivariate logistic regression on the predictors of the variables affecting the attitudes towards sex selection showed that the educational level, religious disapproval and the desire of the opposite sex of the already existing children were the only significant predictors with p-values of 0.01, <0.0001, and < 0.0001 respectively (Table 3).
Table 3.
Multivariate logistic regression of the predictors of attitude towards the new technology*.
| OR (95% CI) | P-value | |
|---|---|---|
| Education – university | 0.13 (0.03 –0.57) | 0.01 |
| Will perform sex selection despite religious disapproval | 0.16 (0.08 – 0.33) | <0.0001 |
| Acceptance of sex selection for opposite sex of already existing children | 4.72 (2.60 – 8.59) | <0.0001 |
Note: p-value <0.05 is statistically significant.
Variables included in the model were: Marital status(reference: not married); employment (reference: not employed); religion ; address (reference: outside Beirut); gravid; Para; infertility (reference: no); education (reference: high school); income (reference: <1000); Will perform sex selection despite religious disapproval; Acceptance of sex selection for opposite sex of already existing children; Pay 5000$ for sex selection; Perform sex selection for free.
Association analysis was then performed to check the significant variables associated with the reasons of acceptance of sex selection. It was found that infertility history, desire of balanced families, not being religious and the free of charge procedure were significant variables for accepting the sex selection procedure for all couples. Christians were more tolerant of the procedure for medical reasons while Muslims accepted the procedure more as a free choice for all couple (p = 0.002) (Table 4).
Table 4.
Association between the reasons that patients agreed to use the new technology of sex selection and other variables.
| Reason - New technology |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Medical indication | All couples | p-value | ||
| N=494 | N=425 | |||
| Sex | Female | 397 (80.9) | 345 (81.2) | 0.9 |
| Male | 94 (19.1) | 80 (18.8) | ||
| Age group | 18-35 | 263 (63.7) | 213 (62.8) | 0.96 |
| 36-45 | 86 (20.8) | 71 (20.9) | ||
| >45 | 64 (15.5) | 55 (16.2) | ||
| Religion | Christian | 159 (32.9) | 91 (22.0) | 0.002 |
| Muslim | 281 (58.2) | 281 (67.9) | ||
| Druze | 37 (7.7) | 32 (7.7) | ||
| Others | 6 (1.2) | 10 (2.4) | ||
| Marital status | Married | 348 (70.6) | 353 (83.1) | <0.0001 |
| Not married | 145 (29.4) | 72 (16.9) | ||
| Married | 348 (70.6) | 353 (83.1) | <0.0001 | |
| Single | 128 (26.0) | 56 (13.2) | ||
| Widow | 6 (1.2) | 4 (0.9) | ||
| Divorced | 11 (2.2) | 12(2.8) | ||
| Employment | Employed | 253 (65.4) | 180 (57.0) | 0.03 |
| Unemployed | 134 (34.6) | 136 (43.0) | ||
| Education | Middle School | 4 (0.8) | 19 (4.5) | <0.0001 |
| High School | 37 (7.6) | 55 (13.0) | ||
| University | 449 (91.6) | 349 (82.5) | ||
| Monthly income | 300-500$ | 27 (6.4) | 37 (10.6) | 0.003 |
| 500-1000$ | 85 (20.2) | 83 (23.7) | ||
| 1000-2000$ | 204(48.6) | 126 (36.0) | ||
| >3000$ | 104 (24.8) | 104 (29.7) | ||
| Number of children | None | 210 (45.0) | 165 (41.6) | 0.03 |
| 1 | 93 (19.9) | 83 (20.9) | ||
| 2 | 74 (15.8) | 92 (23.2) | ||
| 3 | 56 (12.0) | 30 (7.6) | ||
| ≥4 | 34 (7.3) | 27 (6.8) | ||
| Infertility history | Yes | 129 (27.0) | 146 (34.8) | 0.01 |
| No | 349 (73.0) | 274 (65.2) | ||
| Duration | < 2 years | 28 (33.7) | 25 (25.0) | 0.43 |
| 2-3 years | 13 (15.7) | 17 (17.0) | ||
| 3-4 years | 21 (25.3) | 23 (23.0) | ||
| >4 years | 21 (25.3) | 35 (35.0) | ||
| Gender of the first child | A boy | 43 (9.9) | 92 (23.2) | <0.0001 |
| A girl | 43 (9.9) | 63 (15.9) | ||
| Do not care | 348 (80.2) | 241 (60.9) | ||
| Gender of the children in the family | Only boys | 4 (0.8) | 8 (1.9) | <0.0001 |
| Only girls | 3 (0.6) | 10 (2.4) | ||
| More boys than girls | 22 (4.6) | 33 (8.0) | ||
| More girls than boys | 26 (5.5) | 14 (3.4) | ||
| An equal number of boys and girls | 176 (37.1) | 223 (53.9) | ||
| Do not care | 244 (51.4) | 126 (30.4) | ||
| Will perform sex selection despite religious disapproval | Yes | 69 (14.9) | 151 (37.3) | <0.0001 |
| No | 393 (85.1) | 254 (62.7) | ||
| Acceptance of sex selection for opposite sex of already existing children | Yes | 110 (23.1) | 324 (79.4) | <0.0001 |
| No | 367 (76.9) | 84 (20.6) | ||
| Pay 5000$ for sex selection | Yes | 44 (9.3) | 198 (49.1) | <0.0001 |
| No | 429 (90.7) | 205 (50.9) | ||
| Perform sex selection for free | Yes | 83 (17.7) | 270 (68.4) | <0.0001 |
| No | 386 (82.3) | 125 (31.6) | ||
Note: p-value <0.05 is statistically significant.
Discussion
A middle-eastern multi-socio-religious community like Lebanon is facing new experiences as well as challenges especially when it comes to assisted reproductive techniques and PGD sex selection. Such services are being offered in many centers and at different costs. In the absence of any official or governmental legislation, as well as the lack of reporting of sex ratio disparities, a survey that digs into attitudes of the general population towards sex selection is needed. Lebanon is the only Middle-Eastern country composed of a multi-sectarian society with Muslim community predominance a fact that was reflected in our results. A surprising finding was that most of our respondents neither had preference for the gender of the first child nor for the gender composition of the family as total. This contrasts with what is already published concerning the cultural preferences of having sons in Middle Eastern societies [19]. Moreover, 44 percent of the respondents favored having small balanced families with equal number of boys and girls which parallels the European societies’ preferences [18].
The main cause for opposition of sex selection is that it is considered as playing God. Sex ratio imbalance and a sexist act were the least of the concerns for our respondents a result which is similar to the previously conducted surveys in the western world [18]. It was noted however that the acceptance of the procedure whether as a free choice or for medically indicated situations was affected mainly by the educational level, religious status and the desire of the opposite sex of the already existing children. Infertility per se was found to be a significant variable in accepting sex selection unconditionally even if no medical indications were present. As it is known, infertility is a condition that limits the chances of having children spontaneously and hence people might strive to have small balanced families with the least attempts possible and thus the acceptance of sex selection. Similar results were found in the United States where a survey showed that there is significant demand among infertility patients for preimplantation sex selection, with a significant portion of this demand coming from patients who do not have any children or have children of the same sex [23].
One of the main determinants of the attitude towards sex selection in the Lebanese culture remains to be religion and that is irrespective of the belief status. Even when the procedure was offered for free the percentage of people willing to use sex selection didn’t increase significantly in comparison to those who would pay for the procedure. This reflects the influential impact of religious factors on the social aspects of the Lebanese society as well as on personal choices. Similarly, this trend was also noted in the survey that was performed in Israel by Hashiloni‐Dolev et al. [20]. They found that the more religious the respondents, the greater is their support for restricting sex selection [20]. These findings are supported by a survey performed in Malaysia, a multi-religious South-East Asian community, which recommended taking into consideration the religious clergymen’s attitudes towards sex selection as their opinions affects believers’ choices [21]. Our survey showed that Muslims accepted performing sex selection for non-medical reasons significantly more than Christians. Schenker et al noted that the Islamic legal status on sex selection is that it to be allowed on individual basis. It is the Roman Catholic Christian churches that forbid not only PGD but also the majority of the available assisted reproductive techniques [22]. Christian clergymen were very skeptical of the non-medical use of PGD because of concerns of the future impact on humanity and basic human relationships [21].
This survey is the first of it’s kind to be done in a Middle-Eastern religiously diverse society. Another advantage is the large sample size, inclusion of genders, different age groups, employment status and income. It also shed light on people with and without an infertility issue to help better understand the influence of infertility on personal choices. Third, this study included people of different religious background which is an important feature of the multi-sectarian Lebanese society. Of the limitations that this study had and despite the large sample size, all the participants were visitors of one clinic located in the center of the capital. Thus, the population that we had might not actually reflect the total population living in the peripheral areas. Second, the majority of the respondents were females. This limits the generalization of the results to both sexes.
The results of this study will help the physicians understand the motives of their patients based on their socio-religious backgrounds and thus provide well-tailored counseling for the couples seeking infertility treatment. Add to that, it can aid the fertility specialists address the concerns of couples presenting from neighboring countries seeking fertility treatments and pre-conception sex selection. The knowledge of the factors that affect decision making in reproductive issues will improve couple counseling in this part of the world where religion plays an important role in decision making. This is imperative especially in debated situations such as sex selection for medical and non-medical reasons.
Conclusion
We conclude that the middle-eastern multi-religious population studied has a negative attitude towards non-medically indicated sex selection through PGD. Religion, educational status and desire of children of both genders were identified as the significant predictors of the decision whether to accept sex selection or not.
Conflict of interest
The authors have nothing to declare.
Acknowledgements
Dr. Sehrish Abbasi, a MED IV student at the American University of Beirut Medical Center (AUBMC) and Dr. Joe Eid a research assistant at AUBMC, both helped in the writing of the proposal and data collection. This work was not funded.
Footnotes
Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurox.2019.100052.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
The following is Supplementary data to this article:
References
- 1.Confino E., Kazer R.R., Zhang J.X. Assisted reproduction and gender selection:" Why boys? Int J Fertil Womens Med. 2006;51(Jan (1)):11–13. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Heyd D. Reprogen-Ethics and the Future of Gender. Springer; Dordrecht: 2009. Male or female we will create them: the ethics of sex selection for non-medical reasons; pp. 161–173. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Schaffir Jonathan. What are little boys made of? The never-ending search for sex selection techniques. Perspect Biol Med. 1991;34(4):516–525. doi: 10.1353/pbm.1991.0000. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Schulman Joseph D., Karabinus David S. Scientific aspects of preconception gender selection. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005;10:111–115. doi: 10.1016/s1472-6483(10)62217-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Sills Escott, Palermo Gianpiero D. Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2002;(19.9):433–437. doi: 10.1023/A:1016819908612. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine Preimplantation genetic testing: a practice committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2008;90(Suppl. 5) doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.08.062. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Ethics Committee of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine Sex selection and preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Fertil Steril. 1999;72:595–598. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Committee on Ethics ACOG committee opinion # 360. Sex selection. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109:475–478. doi: 10.1097/00006250-200702000-00063. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Dahl E. Procreative liberty: the case for preconception sex selection. Reproductive BioMedicine. 2003;7(Jan (4)):380–384. doi: 10.1016/s1472-6483(10)61880-9. Online. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Serour G. Proceedings of International Conference on Reproductive Disruptions Childlessness, Adoption and Other Reproductive Complexities. University of Michigan; USA: 2005. Ethical guidelines for gender selection: are they needed. [Google Scholar]
- 11.Serour Gamal I. FIGO committee for the ethical aspects of human reproduction and womens’ health. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2006;93(2):182–183. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine Preconception gender selection for nonmedical reasons. Fertil Steril. 2001;5(75):861–864. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(01)01756-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine Use of reproductive technology for sex selection for nonmedical reasons. Fertil Steril. 2015;103(6):1418–1422. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.03.035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Capelouto S.M., Archer S.R., Morris J.R., Kawwass J.F., Hipp H.S. Sex selection for non-medical indications: a survey of current pre-implantation genetic screening practices among US ART clinics. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2017:1–8. doi: 10.1007/s10815-017-1076-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Fertilisation H., Authority E. Sex selection: options for regulation. London: HFEA. 2003;7(Nov 14) [Google Scholar]
- 16.Hank K., Kohler H.P. Gender preferences for children in Europe: empirical results from 17 FFS countries. Demogr Res. 2000;1(Jan 2) [Google Scholar]
- 17.Pollard Michael S., Philip Morgan S. Emerging parental gender indifference? Sex composition of children and the third birth. Am Sociol Rev. 2002;67:4–600. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Dahl E., Beutel M., Brosig B., Hinsch K.D. Preconception sex selection for non‐medical reasons: a representative survey from Germany. Hum Reprod. 2003;18(Oct(10)):2231–2234. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deg426. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Van Balen Frank, Inhorn Marcia C. Son preference, sex selection, and the “new” new reproductive technologies. Int J Health Serv. 2003;33.2:235–252. doi: 10.2190/PP5X-V039-3QGK-YQJB. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Hashiloni‐Dolev Y., Hirsh‐Yechzkel G., Boyko V., Wainstock T., Schiff E., Lerner‐Geva L. Attitudes toward sex selection: a survey among potential users in Israel. Prenat Diagn. 2010;30(Nov (11)):1019–1025. doi: 10.1002/pd.2545. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Olesen A., Nor S.N., Amin L. Religious scholars’ attitudes and views on ethical issues pertaining to pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) in Malaysia. J Bioeth Inq. 2016;13(Sep (3)):419–429. doi: 10.1007/s11673-016-9724-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Schenker Joseph G. Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2002;19(9):400–410. doi: 10.1023/A:1016807605886. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Missmer S.A., Jain T. Preimplantation sex selection demand and preferences among infertility patients in Midwestern United States. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2007;24(Oct (10)):451–457. doi: 10.1007/s10815-007-9157-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.