Sarah M Capelouto1, Sydney R Archer2, Jerrine R Morris3, Jennifer F Kawwass4, Heather S Hipp4. 1. Emory University School of Medicine, 1648 Pierce Drive NE, Atlanta, GA, 30307, USA. sarah.capelouto@emory.edu. 2. Emory University School of Medicine, 1648 Pierce Drive NE, Atlanta, GA, 30307, USA. 3. Emory University Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Emory University School of Medicine, Glenn Building, 4th Floor, 69 Jesse Hill Jr. Drive SE, Atlanta, GA, 30303, USA. 4. Emory University Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology & Infertility, Emory Reproductive Center, 550 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 1800, Atlanta, GA, 30308, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine the current percentage of United States (U.S.) assisted reproductive technology (ART) clinics offering sex selection via pre-implantation genetic screening (PGS) for non-medical purposes. METHODS: The authors conducted website review and telephone interview survey of 493 U.S. ART clinics performing in vitro fertilization (IVF) in 2017. Main outcome measures were pre-implantation genetic screening (PGS)/pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) practices and non-medical sex selection practices including family balancing. RESULTS: Of the 493 ART clinics in the USA, 482 clinics (97.8%) responded to our telephone interview survey. Among all U.S. ART clinics, 91.9% (n = 449) reported offering PGS and/or PGD. Furthermore, 476 clinics responded to survey questions about sex selection practices. Of those ART clinics, 72.7% (n = 346) reported offering sex selection. More specifically among those clinics offering sex selection, 93.6% (n = 324) reported performing sex selection for family balancing, and 81.2% (n = 281) reported performing for elective purposes (patient preference, regardless of rationale for the request). For couples without infertility, 83.5% (n = 289) of clinics offer sex selection for family balancing and 74.6% (n = 258) for non-specific elective reasons. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of U.S. ART clinics offer non-medical sex selection, a percentage that has increased substantially since last reported in 2006.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine the current percentage of United States (U.S.) assisted reproductive technology (ART) clinics offering sex selection via pre-implantation genetic screening (PGS) for non-medical purposes. METHODS: The authors conducted website review and telephone interview survey of 493 U.S. ART clinics performing in vitro fertilization (IVF) in 2017. Main outcome measures were pre-implantation genetic screening (PGS)/pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) practices and non-medical sex selection practices including family balancing. RESULTS: Of the 493 ART clinics in the USA, 482 clinics (97.8%) responded to our telephone interview survey. Among all U.S. ART clinics, 91.9% (n = 449) reported offering PGS and/or PGD. Furthermore, 476 clinics responded to survey questions about sex selection practices. Of those ART clinics, 72.7% (n = 346) reported offering sex selection. More specifically among those clinics offering sex selection, 93.6% (n = 324) reported performing sex selection for family balancing, and 81.2% (n = 281) reported performing for elective purposes (patient preference, regardless of rationale for the request). For couples without infertility, 83.5% (n = 289) of clinics offer sex selection for family balancing and 74.6% (n = 258) for non-specific elective reasons. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of U.S. ART clinics offer non-medical sex selection, a percentage that has increased substantially since last reported in 2006.
Entities:
Keywords:
Family balancing; Gender selection; Non-medical sex selection; Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD); Pre-implantation genetic screening (PGS)
Authors: Sebastiaan Mastenbroek; Moniek Twisk; Jannie van Echten-Arends; Birgit Sikkema-Raddatz; Johanna C Korevaar; Harold R Verhoeve; Niels E A Vogel; Eus G J M Arts; Jan W A de Vries; Patrick M Bossuyt; Charles H C M Buys; Maas Jan Heineman; Sjoerd Repping; Fulco van der Veen Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-07-04 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Christopher P Moutos; William G Kearns; Sarah E Farmer; Jon P Richards; Antonio F Saad; John R Crochet Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2021-06-04 Impact factor: 3.357
Authors: Anastasia A Salame; Jospeh Nassif; Ghina S Ghazeeri; Elie M Moubarak; Antoine Hannoun; Antoine A Abu Musa Journal: Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol X Date: 2019-05-17
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
Authors: Hilary Bowman-Smart; Julian Savulescu; Christopher Gyngell; Cara Mand; Martin B Delatycki Journal: Prenat Diagn Date: 2019-10-10 Impact factor: 3.050