Literature DB >> 16595229

Preconception sex selection demand and preferences in the United States.

Edgar Dahl1, Ruchi S Gupta, Manfred Beutel, Yve Stoebel-Richter, Burkhard Brosig, Hans-Rudolf Tinneberg, Tarun Jain.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Preconception sex selection for nonmedical reasons raises important moral, legal, and social issues. The main concern is based upon the assumption that a widely available service for sex selection will lead to a socially disruptive imbalance of the sexes. For a severe sex ratio distortion to occur, however, at least two conditions have to be met. First, there must be a significant preference for children of a particular sex, and second, there must be a considerable interest in employing sex selection technology. Our objective was to ascertain such demand and preferences among the United States general population.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional web-based survey.
SETTING: United States general population. PATIENT(S): One thousand one hundred ninety-seven men and women aged 18 to 45 years. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Web-based questionnaire assessing preferences for sex of children and demand for preconception sex selection for nonmedical reasons. RESULT(S): Eight percent of respondents would use preconception sex selection technology, 74% were opposed, and 18% were undecided. If the sex selection process was simplified to taking a pill, 18% would be willing to use such a medication, 59% were opposed, and 22% were undecided. In terms of gender choices, 39% of respondents would like their first child to be a son, 19% would like their first child to be a daughter, and 42% had no preference. Overall, 50% wished to have a family with an equal number of boys and girls, 7% with more boys than girls, 6% with more girls than boys, 5% with only boys, 4% with only girls, and 27% had no preference. CONCLUSION(S): Preconception sex selection technology via sperm separation is unlikely to be used by the majority of the United States population and is unlikely to have a significant impact on the natural sex ratio.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16595229     DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.07.1320

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Fertil Steril        ISSN: 0015-0282            Impact factor:   7.329


  9 in total

1.  Social sex selection and the balance of the sexes: empirical evidence from Germany, the UK, and the US.

Authors:  E Dahl; M Beutel; B Brosig; S Grüssner; Y Stöbel-Richter; H-R Tinneberg; Elmar Brähler
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2006-09-17       Impact factor: 3.412

2.  Regulated family balancing by equalizing the sex-ratio of gender-selected births.

Authors:  Boon Chin Heng
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2006-09-17       Impact factor: 3.412

3.  Do daughters really cause divorce? Stress, pregnancy, and family composition.

Authors:  Amar Hamoudi; Jenna Nobles
Journal:  Demography       Date:  2014-08

4.  Parents mention sons more often than daughters on social media.

Authors:  Elizaveta Sivak; Ivan Smirnov
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2019-01-22       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  Perceptions towards sex selection among Jordanian population: A survey study.

Authors:  Saleem Ali Banihani; Karem H Alzoubi; Mohammad S Shawaqfeh; Senthilvel Vasudevan
Journal:  Andrologia       Date:  2022-06-20       Impact factor: 2.532

6.  Preimplantation sex selection demand and preferences among infertility patients in Midwestern United States.

Authors:  Stacey A Missmer; Tarun Jain
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2007-08-24       Impact factor: 3.412

7.  Using Non-Invasive Methods to Choose Gender; Sex Selection with Diet and Determination of Ovulation Time in Iran.

Authors:  Dariush Farhud; Tahereh Mokhtaryan-Gilani; Tayebeh Mokhtarian Gilani; Nasrin Azimi; Zahra Kiani
Journal:  Iran J Public Health       Date:  2022-08       Impact factor: 1.479

8.  Disparities among infertility patients regarding genetic carrier screening, sex selection, and gene editing.

Authors:  Dana B McQueen; Christopher M Warren; Alexander H Xiao; Lee P Shulman; Tarun Jain
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2021-06-25       Impact factor: 3.357

9.  High and growing disapproval of sex-selection technology in Australia.

Authors:  Rebecca Kippen; Edith Gray; Ann Evans
Journal:  Reprod Health       Date:  2018-09-06       Impact factor: 3.223

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.