Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T09:28:32.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Struggles in Defining and Addressing Requests for “Family Balancing”: Ethical Issues Faced by Providers and Patients

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Robert Klitzman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study – the first to explore how infertility providers confront several critical dilemmas concerning sex selection of embryos for nonmedical, social reasons – highlights key challenges and questions. Clinicians struggle, for instance, with how to define “family balalancing”, when to offer it, and how to decide.

Type
Independent Articles
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 44 , Issue 4: Health Reform: Assessing the Affordable Care Act and Moving Forward , Winter 2016 , pp. 616 - 629
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Madan, K. and Breuning, M. H., “Impact of Prenatal Technologies on the Sex Ratio in India: An Overview,” Genetics in Medicine 16, no. 6 (2014): 425–432; A. Sen, “Missing Women,” British Medical Journal 304, no. 6827 (1992): 587-588; The Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces, “Women in an Insecure World. Violence against Women: Facts, Figures and Analysis,” available at <http://www.unicef.org/emerg/files/women_insecure_world.pdf> (last visited October 25, 2016).Google Scholar
Committee for Ethics, American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), “ACOG Committee Opinion No. 360: Sex Selection,” Obstetrics & Gynecology 109, no. 2 (2007): 475–478.Google Scholar
Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), “Preconception Gender Selection for Non-medical Reasons,” Fertility and Sterility 82, Supp. 1 (2004): S232–S235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), “Use of Reproductive Technology for Sex Selection for Nonmedical Reasons,” Fertility and Sterility, 103, no. 6 (2015): 1418–1422.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.; Wilkinson, S., “‘Designer Babies’, Instrumentalisation and the Child's Right to an Open Future,” in Athanassoulis, N., ed., Philosophical Reflections on Medical Ethics (New York: Pal-grave Macmillan, 2005): 44–69; V. Seavilleklein and S. Sherwin, “The Myth of the Gendered Chromosome: Sex Selection and the Social Interest,” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 16, no. 1 (2007): 7-19; S. Puri and R. D. Nachtigall, “The Ethics of Sex Selection: A Comparison of the Attitudes and Experiences of Primary Care Physicians and Physician Providers of Clinical Sex Selection Services,” Fertility and Sterility 93, no. 7 (2010): 2107-2014; A. L. Kalfoglou, M. Kammersell, S. Philpott, and E. Dahl, “Ethical Arguments for and against Sperm Sorting for Non-Medical Sex Selection: A Review,” Reproductive Biomedicine Online 26, no. 3 (2013): 231-239.Google Scholar
Dahl, E., Gupta, R. S., Beutel, M., Stoebel-Richter, Y., Brosig, B., and Tinneberg, H. R. et al., “Preconception Sex Selection Demand and Preferences in the United States,” Fertility and Sterility 85, no. 2 (2006): 468–473.Google Scholar
See Kalfoglou et al., supra note 6; Savulescu, J. and Dahl, E., “Sex Selection and Preimplantation Diagnosis: A Response to the Ethics Committee of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine,” Human Reproduction 15, no. 9 (2000): 1879–1880; E. Dahl, “The 10 Most Common Objections to Sex Selection and Why They Are Far from Being Conclusive: A Western Perspective,” Reproductive Biomedicine Online 14, no. 1 (2007): 158-161; J. A. Robertson, “Preconception Gender Selection,” American Journal of Bioethics 1, no. 1 (2001): 2-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Puri and Nachtigall, supra note 6.Google Scholar
Collis, P., “Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis for Gender Selection in the USA,” Ethics, Bioscience and Life 4, no. 3 (2009): 16–22; N. Gleicher and D. H. Barad, “The Choice of Gender: Is Elective Gender Selection, Indeed, Sexist?” Human Reproduction 22, no. 11 (2007): 3038-3041.Google Scholar
Kolker, A., Burke, B. M., and Phillips, J. U., “Attitudes about Abortion of Women Who Undergo Prenatal Diagnosis,” Research in the Sociology of Health Care 9 (1991): 49–73.Google Scholar
Newport, F., “Americans Prefer Boys to Girls, Just as They Did in 1941,” Gallup, June 25, 2011, available at <http://www.gallup.com/poll/148187/americans-prefer-boys-girls-1941.aspx> (last visited October 25, 2016).+(last+visited+October+25,+2016).>Google Scholar
Jain, T., Missmer, S. A., Gupta, R. S., and Hornstein, M. D., “Preimplantation Sex Selection Demand and Preferences in an Infertility Population,” Fertility and Sterility 83, no. 3 (2005): 649–658.Google Scholar
Missmer, S. A. and Jain, T., “Preimplantation Sex Selection Demand and Preferences among Infertility Patients in Midwestern United States,” Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, 24, no. 10 (2007): 451–457.Google Scholar
Katz, M. G., Fitzgerald, L., Bankier, A, Savulescu, J., and Crain, D. S., “Issues and Concerns of Couples Presenting for Preim-plantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD),” Prenatal Diagnosis no. 22, no. 12 (2002): 1117–1122.Google Scholar
See Missmer and Jain, supra note 13.Google Scholar
Sharp, R. R., McGowan, M. L., Verma, J. A., Landy, D. C., McAdoo, S., and Carson, S. A. et al., “Moral Attitudes and Beliefs among Couples Pursuing PGD for Sex Selection,” Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 21, no. 7 (2010): 838–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Sharp et al., supra note 15.Google Scholar
See Collis, supra note 11.Google Scholar
See Gleicher and Barad, supra note 11.Google Scholar
Puri, S., Adams, V., Ivey, S., and Nachtigall, R. D., “‘There is Such a Thing as Too Many Daughters, but Not Too Many Sons’: A Qualitative Study of Son Preference and Fetal Sex Selection among Indian Immigrants in the United States,” Social Science & Medicine 72, no. 7 (2011): 1169–1176.Google Scholar
Baruch, S., Kaufman, D., and Hudson, K. L., “Genetic Testing of Embryos: Practices and Perspectives of US in Vitro Fertilization Clinics,” Fertility and Sterility 89, no. 5 (2008): 1053–1058.Google Scholar
Klitzman, R., Zolovska, B., Folberth, W., Chung, W., Sauer, M., and Appelbaum, P., “Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis on In Vitro Fertilization Clinic Websites: Presentations of Risks, Benefits and Other Information,” Fertility and Sterility 92, no. 4 (2009): 1276–1283.Google Scholar
Klitzman, R., Chung, W., Marder, K., Shanmugham, A., Chin, L. J., and Stark, M. et al., “Views of Internists Towards Uses of PGD,” Reproductive Biomedicine Online 26, no. 2 (2013): 142–147; R. Klitzman, K. J. Abbate, W. K. Chung, R. Ottman, C. S. Leu, P. S. Appelbaum, “Views of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis among Psychiatrists and Neurologists,” Journal of Reproductive Medicine 59, no. 7-8 (2014): 385-392.Google Scholar
Ehrich, K., Williams, C., Farsides, B., Sandall, J., and Scott, R, “Choosing Embryos: Ethical Complexity and Relational Autonomy in Staff accounts of PGD,” Sociology of Health & Illness 29, no. 7 (2007): 1091–1106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Kalfoglou et al., supra note 6.Google Scholar
See Puri and Nachtigall, supra note 6.Google Scholar
See Ethics Committee of the ASRM, supra note 4Google Scholar
Savulescu and Dahl, supra note 9; Dahl, supra note 9.Google Scholar
Taylor-Phillips, S., Freeman, K., Geppert, J., Agbebiyi, A., Uthmanl, O. A., and Madan, J. et al., “Accuracy of Non-invasive Prenatal Testing Using Cell-Free DNA for Detection of Down, Edwards and Patau Syndromes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis,” BMJ Open 6, no. e010002 (2016), available at <http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/1/e010002.full> (last visited October 25, 2016).Google Scholar
Klitzman, R., “How Old Is Too Old? Challenges Faced by Clinicians Concerning Age Cutoffs for Patients Undergoing In Vitro Fertilization,” Fertility and Sterility 106, no. 18 (2016): 216–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guest, G., Bunce, A., and Johnson, L., “How Many Interviews are Enough? An Experiment with Data Saturation and Variability,” Field Methods 18, no. 1 (2006): 59–82.Google Scholar
Geertz, C., Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays (New York: Basic Books, 1973).Google Scholar
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J., Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications, 1990); see Collis, supra note 11; Gleicher and Barad, supra note 11.Google Scholar
Klitzman, R., Thorne, D., Williamson, J., Chung, W., and Marder, K., “Disclosures of Huntington Disease Risk within Families: Patterns of Decision-Making and Implications,” American Journal of Medical Genetics 143A, no. 16 (2007): 1835–1849; R. Klitzman, P. S. Appelbaum, A. Fyer, J. Martinez, B. Buquez, and J. Wynn et al., “Researchers' Views on Return of Incidental Genomic Research Results: Qualitative and Quantitative Findings,” Genetics in Medicine 15, no. 11 (2013): 888-895; R. Klitzman, “Institutional Review Board Community Members: Who Are They, What Do They Do, and Whom Do They Represent?” Academic Medicine 87, no. 7 (2012): 975-981; R. Klitzman and S. Daya, “Challenges and Changes in Spirituality among Doctors who Become Patients,” Social Science & Medicine 61, no. 11 (2005): 2396-2406; R. Klitzman, “How Good Does the Science Have to Be in Proposals Submitted to Institutional Review Boards? An Interview Study of Institutional Review Board Personnel,” Clinical Trials 10, no. 5 (2013): 761-766.Google Scholar
Bodri, D., “Risk and Complications Associated with Egg Donation,” in Sauer, M. V., ed., Risk and Complications Associated with Egg Donation (London: Springer-Verlag London, 2013): 205–219.Google Scholar
See Ehrich, supra note 33; Gleicher and Barad, supra note 11.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, C. and Stoljar, N., “Introduction: Autonomy Reconfigured,” in Mackenzie, C. and Stoljar, N., eds., Relational Anatomy: Feminist Perspectives on Autonomy, Agency and the Social Self (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000): 514–533.Google Scholar
See Ehrich, supra note 23; Scully, J. L., Shakespeare, T., and Banks, S., “Gift Not Commodity? Lay People Deliberating Social Sex Selection,” Sociology of Health & Illness, 28, no. 6 (2006): 749–767.Google Scholar
Beauchamp, T. L. and Childress, J. F., Principles of Biomedical Ethics (Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2008).Google Scholar
See Puri and Nachtigall, supra note 6.Google Scholar
See Taylor-Phillips et al., supra note 28.Google Scholar