Literature DB >> 21051290

Moral attitudes and beliefs among couples pursuing PGD for sex selection.

Richard R Sharp1, Michelle L McGowan, Jonathan A Verma, David C Landy, Sallie McAdoo, Sandra A Carson, Joe Leigh Simpson, Laurence B McCullough.   

Abstract

This article reports the results from a study of couples participating in a research protocol in which IVF/preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) was available for non-medical sex selection. The study sought to characterize the moral attitudes and beliefs of couples actively pursuing IVF/PGD solely for purposes related to sex selection. Eighteen couples participated in ethnographic interviews from November 2005 to April 2006. These interviews explored couples' motivations for pursuing sex selection, moral beliefs and attitudes regarding sex selection and sources of moral ambivalence about the use of IVF/PGD for sex selection. Couples reported a combination of motivations for pursuing sex selection, including a desire to limit family size, concerns about parental age and financial concerns about multiple pregnancies. Many couples compared their decision to choices about abortion, maintaining that individuals have a right to make such decisions privately. Couples frequently expressed anxiety about telling their other children and family members about their plans to use IVF/PGD for sex selection. Few couples cited concerns about the physical or emotional burdens of IVF/PGD. The study's findings suggest that couples pursuing IVF/PGD for sex selection view this as an ethically complex decision and express considerable uncertainty about the ethical acceptability of this practice.
Copyright © 2010 Reproductive Healthcare Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21051290     DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2010.09.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Reprod Biomed Online        ISSN: 1472-6483            Impact factor:   3.828


  5 in total

Review 1.  Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: state of the art 2011.

Authors:  Joyce C Harper; Sioban B Sengupta
Journal:  Hum Genet       Date:  2011-07-12       Impact factor: 4.132

2.  How Sex Selection Undermines Reproductive Autonomy.

Authors:  Tamara Kayali Browne
Journal:  J Bioeth Inq       Date:  2017-03-15       Impact factor: 1.352

3.  The ethical, legal, and social issues impacted by modern assisted reproductive technologies.

Authors:  Paul R Brezina; Yulian Zhao
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol Int       Date:  2012-01-04

4.  Engendering Harm: A Critique of Sex Selection For "Family Balancing".

Authors:  Arianne Shahvisi
Journal:  J Bioeth Inq       Date:  2018-01-24       Impact factor: 1.352

5.  Multi-factorial influences on sex ratio: a spatio-temporal investigation of endocrine disruptor pollution and neighborhood stress.

Authors:  Ewan McDonald; Andrew Watterson; Andrew N Tyler; John McArthur; E Marion Scott
Journal:  Int J Occup Environ Health       Date:  2014 Jul-Sep
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.