2011/02: Should Australian parents using IVF be allowed to select the gender of their children?
What they said...
'It is totalitarian for the State to dictate which children parents should have and rear'
Julian Savulescu, Ethics Program, Centre for the Study of Health and Society, University of Melbourne
'The right to reproductive freedom has never been considered an absolute right'
The American Society for Reproductive Medicine
The issue at a glance
On January 8, 2011, it was reported that a Victorian couple were going before the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal to win the right to select the gender of their next child by IVF treatment.
The couple has three sons and had a daughter who died shortly after birth. They are anxious to give birth to another girl. They have had IVF treatment which resulted in twin boys whom they had aborted.
The Patient Review Panel has recently rejected the couple's bid to choose the sex of their next child using IVF. The couple hopes the Civil and Administrative Tribunal will overturn that decision.
The issue of whether IVF should be used to allow parents to select the gender of their children was raised in the media earlier in 2010 when it was reported that National Health and Medical Research Council's 'Ethical guidelines on the use of assisted reproductive technology in clinical practice and research' were due for review. These guidelines include a recommendation against the use of IVF technology to permit parents to select the gender of their children for anything other than medical reasons.
Background
Sex selection techniques
The two techniques used to select sex prior to conception are sperm sorting and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD).
Sperm sorting involves separating X (female) and Y (male) chromosome-bearing sperm cells. Clinicians sort sperm and then select it for use in an insemination or IVF procedure.
The likelihood of conceiving a child of the desired sex using this technique is variable. Sperm sorting is not available in Australia.
The process of gene testing by PGD allows the sex of an embryo to be determined before it is transferred to a woman's body.
Current legal situation in Australia and overseas
Sex selection by PGD is the only type of sex selection procedure permitted under Australian law.
The Infertility Treatment Act 1995 bans treatment procedures to produce a child of a particular sex, except where this is necessary 'to avoid the risk of passing on a genetic abnormality or a disease to the child'. The penalty for breach of this section is 240 penalty units (approximately $26,000) or 2 years imprisonment, or both.
The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) ethical guidelines on ART (Assisted Reproductive Technology) also prohibit sex selection by whatever means, except where it would reduce the risk of transmitting a serious genetic condition. The guidelines maintain that 'admission to life should not be conditional upon a child being a particular sex'. However, the guidelines acknowledge that 'sex selection is an ethically controversial issue' and issued the prohibition 'pending further community discussion'.
The NHMRC guidelines are scheduled to be reviewed in 2011.
Sex selection for non-medical reasons is not permitted in Victoria, Western Australia or South Australia. In all other Australian states and territories, NHMRC ethical guidelines act to prohibit the procedure.
Sex selection for non-medical reasons is prohibited in the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand, although these prohibitions have been reviewed.
In 2006, the United Kingdom government published its legislative proposal on sex selection in response to reviews by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. The UK government has decided that sex selection for non-medical reasons should continue to be prohibited, basing its decision on the strength of public opinion against sex selection and its possible ramifications, such as a preference for male children. The UK ban is intended to extend to sperm sorting as well as to PGD techniques.
The American Society for Reproductive Medicine Ethics Committee recommends that sex selection for non-medical reasons should not be encouraged, while the initiation of IVF solely for sex selection purposes should be discouraged. However, sex selection for non-medical reasons is available in some US jurisdictions. In a 2005 survey of 186 US fertility clinics, 42% of clinics reported that they had provided PGD for non-medical sex selection.
Thailand's Medical Council has only advised against sex selection. Therefore Thai clinics can take advantage of a gap in the market. The procedure is significantly cheaper in Thailand. Phattaraphum Phophong, a fertility specialist at Bumrungrad International hospital, has estimated that foreigners account for about 60 percent of the 500 patients that visit the hospital's fertility unit each month, with clients coming from Europe, the United States, Japan, Australia, the Middle East and other countries in Asia.
Internet information
In 1999, The Medical Journal of Australia published an article by Julian Savulescu, the Director of the Ethics Unit, Murdoch Institute, and the Director of the Ethics Program, Centre for the Study of Health and Society, University of Melbourne, titled 'Sex selection: the case for'. Savulescu gives a detailed account of the various procedures available to achieve sex selection, the then legal situation with regard to gender selection in Australia and then considers a number of arguments opposing gender selection and responds to these. The full text of this article can be found at http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/171_7_041099/savulescu/savulescu.html
In 2004 National Health and Medical Research Council released its Ethical guidelines on the use of assisted reproductive technology in clinical practice and research. Revised guidelines were issued in 2007. The guidelines state, 'admission to life should not be conditional upon a child being a particular sex.' The sex selection guidelines discussion begins on page 53.
The full text of the guidelines can be found at http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/publications/synopses/e78.pdf
In June 2007 The Victorian Law Reform Commission released its final report on Assisted Reproductive Technology and Adoption. Chapter seven of the report gives the Commission's findings on sex selection. The Commission concluded, 'The current legislative ban on sex selection for non-medical reasons should remain in place.' The Commission's full deliberations can be found at http://www.lawreform.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/justlib/Law+Reform/resources/f/6/f65fc200404a0d309836fbf5f2791d4a/chapter+7+sex+selection.pdf
On March 13, 2010, The Daily Telegraph published a background analysis titled, 'Parents push for unnatural selection' by Grant McArthur and Elissa Doherty. The article considers the fact that the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) will soon be reviewing the ethical guidelines that currently prohibit the use of IVF technology to allow parents to select the gender of their children. The article primarily presents the views of those who support IVF being used for gender selection. The full text of this article can be found at http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/parents-push-for-unnatural-selection/story-e6freuy9-1225840201633
On March 13, 2010, ABC News published a background piece titled, 'Boy or girl? Push for parents to choose'. The item explains that the National Health and Medical Research Council's prohibition on the use of IVF procedures for sex selection finishes at the end of 2010 and suggests that the review of the guidelines scheduled to follow could result in a relaxation of the current ban. The item gives the views of a number of reproductive technology experts who favour a relaxation. The full text of this report can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/13/2844925.htm
In April 2010, Life, Marriage and Family (a regular publication produced by the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne, outlining social issues upon which the Catholic Church has a particular view) published an article titled, 'Gender-selection controversy a pre-emptive strike'. The opinion piece considers some of the arguments supporting gender selection and then argues against them using both medical and ethical arguments, some, but not all of which have a Catholic emphasis. The piece was written by Fr Kevin McGovern, the Director of the Caroline Chisholm Centre for Health Ethics. The full text of this piece can be found at http://www.cam.org.au/life-marriage-and-family/gender-selection-controversy-a-pre-emptive-strike.html
On July 9, 2010, The Herald Sun published a news report titled, 'Parties dodge calls for change to ban on baby sex selection.' The report detailed the plight of a Melbourne woman who planned to go to Thailand so that she could use IVF to select the gender of her child. It also details the current positions of the federal Government and the Opposition on the issue. The full text of this article can be found at http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/parties-dodge-calls-for-change-to-ban-on-baby-sex-selection/story-e6frf7jo-1225889992806
On October 9, 2010, The Courier Mail published a background analysis titled, 'Should you choose baby's sex?' by Sharon Labi. The piece gives the views of parents seeking to select the gender of their next child as well as those of a number of ethicists, obstetricians, IVF specialists and geneticists. The full text of this article can be found at http://www.couriermail.com.au/lifestyle/body-soul/should-you-choose-babys-sex/story-e6frer86-1225936067513
The Center for Genetics and Society is a nonprofit information and public affairs organization working to encourage responsible uses and effective societal governance of the new human genetic and reproductive technologies.
The Centre has reproduced on its Internet site the text of an ABC news report of December 22, 2010, titled, 'Let's talk about sex: boys or girls?' The report details the findings of Melbourne University research (headed by Dr Rebecca Kippen) on Australian attitudes to gender selection. The report indicates that a substantial majority of Australians are opposed to such a development. The full text of this report can be found at http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=5524
On January 8, 2011, The Courier Mail published a news report by Phil Teese outlining the availability of IVF for gender selection in Thailand. The full text of the article can be found at http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/parents-choose-custom-babies/story-fn6ck45n-1225984170070
On January 10, 2011, The Punch published an opinion piece by Sam Cleveland titled, 'Playing with nature - the ethics of sex selection'. Rather than adopting a particular view on the issue, Mr Cleveland presents some of the ethical concerns it raises. The full text of this comment can be found at http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/playing-with-nature-the-ethics-of-sex-selection/
On January 12, 2011, The Adelaide Advertiser published a background piece by Callie Watson titled, 'Fertile grounds for debate'. The piece gives an overview of IFV development since its inception and then looks at the debate surrounding its use to help parents select the gender of their child. The full text of this report can be found at http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/ipad/fertile-grounds-for-debate/story-fn6bqphm-1225985820918
Arguments in favour of Australian parents using IVF to select the gender of their children
1. Couples who want a child of a particular gender should not be denied the opportunity
It has been claimed that reproductive autonomy is a right that should only be limited if it impinges on the rights of others. This extends, it is claimed, to parents being allowed to choose the sex of their children. Supporters of using IVF for gender selection claim that it causes no harm to others and therefore the procedure should be available to those parents who want it, particularly if they are prepared to pay for it themselves.
It appears that a significant percentage of parents currently using IVF would appreciate the opportunity to choose their baby's gender. A study conducted in Britain in 2005 found that many women treated at infertility clinics would say yes to a free option to choose their baby's sex, according to a new study.
Researchers found that 41 percent of women said they would take advantage of a free option to select the sex of their baby during infertility treatment, and half of those women would still opt to choose the sex of their baby if they had to pay for the opportunity.
A British mother who has already given birth to three boys has been reported as saying, 'I got sick of walking down the high street past BabyGap and seeing these delightful little girl outfits in the window and just getting this pang. This is an area of our lives that we can't influence unless we pay for it. Hmm, that doesn't sound very nice but...'
Dr Gary Harton, who runs a British fertility clinic, has stated, 'We get regular workaday folk. He's a cop. She's a schoolteacher. It's just very, very important to them. People will take out mortgages, they'll borrow from relatives. They'll do anything.'
In an article published in The Daily Mail, April May Maple wrote, 'If available, no one would be forced into it, just like now parents have the option to learn the sex of the baby at the ultrasound or wait until the birth. Choosing the sex would be an elective procedure paid for by the parents. This decision being made available will only affect those that choose to take advantage of it. For those that disagree, they can simply choose not to participate. It is simply unfair to deprive parents that have no apprehensions about making the decision due to the religious or personal feelings of others.'
This position has been summed up in About.com's entry on Gender Selection which states, 'Aside from the fact that parents have traditionally been given great discretion over their reproductive choices, the ability to aid the desires of couples who have strong preferences about the gender of their offspring is perhaps the strongest reason for allowing such work. Thus, it is arguable that unless there is demonstrable and substantial harm to others, then couples should be allowed to choose the gender of their offspring.'
2. Choosing a child's gender may be in the best interests of that child
Supporters of parents' right to use IVF to choose the gender of their children argue that it may well be in the interests of the children born to those parents.
It has been claimed that if a couple desperately want a child of a particular gender and give birth to a child of the opposite gender, that child may not be as welcomed or well-treated as is desirable.
Professor Gab Kovacs, an IVF pioneer, has stated, 'It might ... be in the interests of the child. If a couple so badly want a boy or a girl that they are prepared to go through IVF and gender selection then maybe, if they had the child naturally and it was the wrong gender it may not be looked after as well.'
A similar point has been made by bio-ethicist Dr Leslie Cannold from the Centre for Gender and Medicine, who has stated, 'We ... may be creating a situation if we stop people from doing that [using IVF in Australia to select the gender of their child] because, say, they don't have enough money to travel [to a country where the procedure is legal], where they're having a child that they're actually not going to be a very good parent to, and this doesn't seem a very good outcome either.'
In an article published in The Daily Mail, April May Maple wrote, 'Look at the drastically different lives a child would lead having been born to parents that wanted the opposite sex compared to being born to parents that finally had the son or daughter they coveted. The parents and the child would be happier.'
April Maple went on to state, 'Many families are larger than the parents originally intended, because they could not give up on their attempts of producing the son or daughter they sought after. Having a large family can be financially taxing, as well as very stressful for the parents and children.'
3. Allowing Australian parents to select the gender of their child will not lead to discrimination and gender imbalances
It has been argued that the sort of gender imbalances that have occurred in China and India would not occur in Australia as there is not the same entrenched preference for a male child over a female. Such prejudices are reinforced by cultural traditions such as inheritance and dowry practices which are not a factor in Australia.
Making a similar point in relation to the United States, Dr Louise King noted, 'Those who favor sex selection for non-medical purposes correctly point to differences between Western and Eastern culture. In India, a daughter's dowry can bankrupt a family. No such burden exists in Western culture.'
In an article published in the Medical Journal of Australia in 1999, Julian Savulescu, argued, 'Sex selection is more likely to harm women in Asia. There, sex selection is already common. The male-to-female ratio has risen to close to 1.2 in China18 and some urban parts of India.'
It has been pointed out that in Western societies, those parents wishing to determine the sex of one of their children usually do so because they wish to 'balance' their family. This means they already have one or more children of one gender and would like to have a child of the opposite gender. It is argued that such a desire does not represent a bias against one sex over another and would not result in gender imbalances across the country.
Julian Savulescu has noted, 'In the US, 90% of couples wanting sex selection wished to balance sex within the family. Parents were in their mid thirties, had two or three children and only wanted one more. In both the US and UK, just over half of couples choose a girl. Sex selection for family balancing would prevent, rather than contribute to, a disturbed sex ratio and harm to women.'
Similarly Dr Louise King pointed out, 'The vast majority of couples surveyed [within the United States] who would seek ART for sex selection would do so to ensure a "balanced family" with a child of each sex. ... Israel permits sex selection for couples who have had four children of one sex and wish the next child to be of the other sex. Implicit in this policy is the argument that such a desire is not inherently sexist but merely recognizes that raising a girl is different from raising a boy.'
4. Gender selection should be regulated, not banned
It has been argued that the most extreme action governments are entitled to take is to regulate the use of IVF for sex selection. As gender selection is not intrinsically harmful, it is claimed that it is not reasonable to prohibit the practice. All governments should do is regulate the nature of access to the procedure to ensure that no individuals are disadvantaged.
In 2003, the British Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) issued a consultation paper on gender selection. The purpose of the consultation, entitled 'Sex selection: choice and responsibility in human reproduction', was to seek the views of the public regarding under which circumstances, if any, gender selection should be available to those seeking treatment and whether any new legal provisions should be put in place to regulate the practice. The Authority noted, 'The state should not prevent gender selection but only regulate it, to ensure that standards of public health and safety are maintained and that selection is carried out in a way which complies with the reasons for which it is permitted.'
The Authority went on to state, 'In contemplating regulation, it should be noted that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 states that treatment should not be provided until account is taken of the welfare of the resulting child and any other child.'
It has been argued that Australian state and federal governments should adopt a similar position, allowing IVF to be used for gender selection and regulating it only to the extent that this is necessary to prevent harm being done any of the parties involved.
5. Highly determined couples will find a means to select their child's gender
It has been argued that the prohibitions that exist in Australia are futile as those couples who can afford to do so go to other countries such as Thailand or the United States where they are able to use IVF techniques in order to have a child with the gender of their choice.
Dr Richard Henshaw, who runs a fertility clinic in Adelaide has stated, 'It's not like patients don't have an option; it's just that option is not available in Australia.'
Doctors at a Thai fertility clinic at Phuket International Hospital claim they received dozens of inquiries from Australian parents in the first five days after the story about the Melbourne couple appeared in the Australian media.
The fertility clinic at the Phuket International Hospital gives prospective parents the option of choosing their baby's sex as well as having the embryo genetically engineered to remove the risk of hereditary diseases, such as Down syndrome. The total cost of the procedure, include airfare, is currently $8000. The same procedure is about twice as expensive in Australia. This means that the procedure is well within the reach of many parents seeking to select the gender of their child.
'People from those countries where this procedure is banned can quite legally come to Thailand for the treatment, without breaking any laws in their home country,' clinic chief obstetrician and gynaecologist, Dr Manop Janthanaphan has claimed.
The $7 million Safe Fertility Centre, which opened in October 2010, features the latest technology and specialised treatment labs for embryology, andrology, cryopreservation and genetics. The clinic expects to treat hundreds of childless couples from around the world each year, including dozens of couples from Australia.
Arguments against Australian parents using IVF to select the gender of their children
1. A substantial majority of Australians are opposed to IVF being used to allow parents to select the gender of their child
This is not an option which the majority of Australians believe should be available to parents; therefore, to the extent that laws and regulations are an expression of popular values, it has been argued Australia should not make IVF available for the gender selection of children.
In December 2010 research led by Dr Rebecca Kippen (a University of Melbourne demographer) found that 80 per cent of people are against sex-selective abortions and 67 per cent are against the use of IVF for sex selection.
The findings are based on responses from more than 2,500 people in the Australian Survey of Social Attitudes, and a series of in-depth parental interviews. In addition to rejecting abortion and IVF being used to select for the sex of a child, 89 per cent of respondents were also opposed to the use of any hypothetical technology which might make it possible to select the sex of a child before conception (the so-called 'pink or blue pill' option.)
Dr Kippen stated, 'We found a very high opposition to all three methods of sex selection.' Dr Kippen went on to explain, 'Opposition to these technologies was grounded in three major concerns: the potential for distorted sex ratios; that sex selection can be an expression of gender bias; and a concern about designer infants being created, when parents should be happy with a healthy baby.'
Both major political parties are also opposed to the use of IVF to select the gender of a child for any reason other than preventing the passing on of a sex-linked disease or disability.
In March 2010 the federal Health Minister, Nicola Roxon, stated that the federal government was not pushing for a ban on baby gender selection technology to be lifted and she personally was very uncomfortable with the proposal. She repeated this view in July 2010. At the same time the office of the federal Opposition leader, Tony Abbott, stated that he was on the record as being opposed to using IVF sex selection technology for social or family balancing reasons.
2. Gender selection reduces the value parents attach to their children
Opponents of the gender selection of children argue that it represents a misplacement of values. According to this line of argument children are to be valued in their own right, not as an expression of the gender preference of their parents.
The Australian Health Ethics Committee has stated that 'admission to life should not be conditional upon a child being a particular sex'. While the National Health and Medical Research Council has based its opposition to the use of IVF procedures for gender selection in part on the fact that 'the parent-child relationship should be unconditional'. The council further stated, 'sex selection is incompatible with the parent-child relationship being one that involves unconditional acceptance'.
Rebecca Wilson in an opinion piece published in The herald Sun on January 10, 2011, stated, 'The notion that women are terminating babies just because they are the "wrong" sex is abhorrent. Having babies is not like exchanging a bad Christmas present. Greedy consumerism should not be applied to embryos...
Aborting twin boys and then being handed the right to have a female is modern science out of control. Being given what you want from IVF technology is an extension of the greed is good philosophy. This is not about shopping for the perfect plasma screen television...
Having babies is not about picking and choosing. It is about the beautiful surprise of childbirth and the gift of healthy children.'
The instance of a Melbourne couple who had IVF male twins aborted because they already had two sons has led some commentators to suggest that this demonstrates the manner in which the worth of individual lives can be diminished. In a letter published in The Courier Mail on January 10, Kerry Lawson stated, 'My heart breaks for the three living sons they have been blessed with. No matter how much they love their boys, the subtle message being conveyed is that their maleness is not valued.'
3. Gender selection may entrench gender prejudice
National Health and Medical Research Council has stated, 'Sex selection may be an expression of sexual prejudice, in particular against girls.'
It has been argued that allowing parents to give expression to this form of prejudice is both inequitable (as it assumes that one gender is in fact preferable to another) and could have adverse social consequences, leading to a gender imbalance and to the further entrenchment of prejudicial treatment of the less favoured gender.
In an opinion piece published in The Punch on January 10, 2011, Sam Cleveland stated, 'Regardless of the circumstances outside the womb, the very act of choosing gender can be seen as a perverse form of sex discrimination... it's already clear globally that the capacity to choose gender swings birth rates towards males.'
Sam Cleveland went on to note, 'Widespread gender selection brings with it some pretty serious demographic imbalances, which we're already seeing in China and India where... boy babies are more valued than girl babies.
This 'quaint' cultural standard will, according to the Chinese government, give China 30 million more men of marriageable age than women by 2020.
Sociologists have linked this imbalance to an increased demand for prostitution, a return to dowries or the selling of brides and social problems among "unpaired" men.'
A background paper issued in July 2003 by the United Kingdom's Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology and titled, 'Sex Selection' included the following statistics, 'Chinese census data show that 20 years ago there were 108 boys under the age of 5 for every 100 girls, and that by 2000 this ratio had shifted to 117 boys to 100 girls... [Data from] more prosperous regions [showed] ratios of up to 135 boys for every 100 girls.'
It has been argued that in different cultures a gender prejudice could just as easily favour girls over boys.
The July 2003 United Kingdom parliamentary background paper further noted, 'It is interesting that 80% of parents approaching MicroSort clinics in the US want a girl. The reasons for this preference for girls have not been explored but some clinics suggest that it is linked to the improved status of women in US society and a belief that girls are easier to raise.'
4. IVF was not developed to allow parents to discriminate between one child and another
It has been claimed that using IVF to allow parents to select for a particular gender of child is contrary to the rationale for which the procedure was developed and then made available to the public.
According to this line of argument the purpose of IVF is to allow otherwise infertile couples to have an opportunity to have children. Any use of the procedure by fertile couples to pick the particular type of child whom they will give birth to or by infertile couples who will only accept a particular type of child is seen as contrary to the purpose for which the medical technology was developed.
The Victorian Law Reform Commission released its Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) review in 2007. The review expressed serious reservations about any use of this technology to select the gender of a child. The Commission argued that 'the purpose of ART is to help people who cannot otherwise have children or whose children would be disadvantaged without the technology. Sex selection for non-medical reasons does not fit within this criterion, and diverts medical resources to a non-medical purpose. Public funding for non-medical sex selection is difficult to justify.'
5. Gender selection could lead to using technology to achieve the 'perfect child'
There are those who are concerned that the discretionary use of IVF to supply a couple with a child of the gender they prefer could lead to parents attempting to select children on the basis of other attributes such as intelligence, sporting ability or appearance.
Some see this as the thin edge of a discriminatory wedge which could lead to attempts to remove all variation from the human species and effectively eliminate conditions or attributes currently considered undesirable.
It has been suggested that the popularisation of such attitudes through some parents' use of IVF to engineer the child of their choice could lead to heightened discrimination against those born with any sort of disability or perceived imperfection.
A background paper issued in July 2003 by the United Kingdom's Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology and titled, 'Sex Selection' included the following judgement, 'There is considerable debate in the media about "designer" babies, predicting that developments in genetics will allow parents to specify the type of child that they want. Many groups, including religious groups, regard sex selection to be the first (unacceptable) step along this pathway.'
The background paper further noted, 'There is concern from disability ... groups that sex selection technology will be used to select against progressively milder conditions (an extreme example of this would be colour blindness). The definition of 'serious' disease is not an issue specific to sex selection but applies to any medical intervention that aims to avoid the birth of people with disabilities.'
Already in the United States parents of IVF babies are screening embryos for a wide range of conditions, some of which might be regarded as of relatively minor significance. In 2006 Slate reported the story of an 'American patient who plans to screen her embryos for an arthritis gene'. The online magazine went on to note, 'The probability that the gene will cause the disease is only 20 percent, and if it does, the disease is highly manageable.'
Further implications
It is probable that the National Health and Medical Research Council's 'Ethical guidelines on the use of assisted reproductive technology in clinical practice and research' will be reviewed this year.
The relatively ready availability of IVF procedures for sex selection in Thailand and elsewhere may lead the Council to conclude that it should make the procedure available for this purpose in Australia. Were the Council to make this recommendation it would give it the power to establish regulations limiting the conditions under which this procedure would be allowed for gender selection. However, even where the Council to do this, those couples whose circumstances did not fit any revised NHMRC guidelines would still be able to have the procedure performed overseas.
There seems little political will to make any legislative change. Both the federal healthy minister and the leader of the Opposition have indicated they are opposed to any relaxation of the guidelines. It is also the case that a large majority of the electorate are opposed to IVF procedures being used for sex selection. Popular opposition to the practice appears to have been one of the determining factors in the recent decision of the British Government to continue to disallow the practice.
Regulations aside, it is the will of couples to use the technology for this purpose that is likely to determine what occurs in the long-term. Currently only a small percentage of couples asks to be able to select the gender of their child and an even smaller group is prepared to go overseas to access the procedure. However, as the cost of having the procedure performed in Thailand is now so relatively low, this trend may well increase.
A survey taken among British couples using IVF indicated that some 40 percent would like to be able to select the sex of their children. If preference levels are as high as this in Australia then the number of couples going off-shore to access the procedure will grow.
Newspaper items used in the compilation of this issue outline
Herald-Sun, January 8, 2011, page 1, news item by Shelley Hadfield, `Give us a girl'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/give-us-a-girl-plea-couple/story-e6frf7kx-1225983885268
Herald-Sun, January 8, 2011, page 28, editorial, `Division over baby choice'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/editorials/division-over-choice-of-baby/story-e6frfhqo-1225983924539
Herald-Sun, January 9, 2011, page 7, news item, `Babies made to order'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/babies-made-to-order-for-aussies/story-fn6bfm6w-1225984321294
Herald-Sun, January 10, 2011, page 20, comment by Rebecca Wilson, `Shopping for pink'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/shopping-for-pink-isnt-the-right-thing/story-e6frfhqf-1225984630426
Herald-Sun, January 10, 2011, page 21, comment by Sally Morrell, `Ban on sex selection leads to a tragic choice'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/sex-selection-ban-means-tragic-choice/story-fn6bn88w-1225984624391
(see also Internet Information section for more newspaper items)