PET PET
  • My Account
  • Subscribe
Become a Friend Donate
  • About Us
    • People
    • Press Office
    • Our History
  • Get Involved
    • Become a Friend of PET
    • Volunteer
    • Campaigns
    • Writing Scheme
    • Partnership and Sponsorship
    • Advertise with Us
  • Donate
    • Become a Friend of PET
  • BioNews
    • News
    • Comment
    • Reviews
    • Elsewhere
    • Topics
    • Glossary
    • Newsletters
  • Events
    • Upcoming Events
    • Previous Events
  • Engagement
    • Policy and Projects
      • Resources
    • Education
  • Jobs & Opportunities
  • Contact Us
  • About Us
    • People
    • Press Office
    • Our History
  • Get Involved
    • Become a Friend of PET
    • Volunteer
    • Campaigns
    • Writing Scheme
    • Partnership and Sponsorship
    • Advertise with Us
  • Donate
    • Become a Friend of PET
  • BioNews
    • News
    • Comment
    • Reviews
    • Elsewhere
    • Topics
    • Glossary
    • Newsletters
  • Events
    • Upcoming Events
    • Previous Events
  • Engagement
    • Policy and Projects
      • Resources
    • Education
  • Jobs & Opportunities
  • Contact Us
  • My Account
  • Subscribe
  • Privacy Statement
  • Advertising Policy
  • Thanks and Acknowledgements
PETBioNewsCommentOn hard and fast rules in sex selection

BioNews

On hard and fast rules in sex selection

Published 18 June 2009 posted in Comment and appears in BioNews 80

Author

Juliet Tizzard

Image by Peter Artymiuk via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts the shadow of a DNA double helix, on a background that shows the fluorescent banding of the output from a DNA sequencing machine.
CC BY 4.0
Image by Peter Artymiuk via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts the shadow of a DNA double helix, on a background that shows the fluorescent banding of the sequencing output from an automated DNA sequencing machine.

When the story of the Nash family hit the headlines two weeks ago, most media commentators seemed supportive of their use of embryo selection to have a disease-free child who was also a tissue match for his older sibling. But then, the next day, the story of the Mastertons emerged...

When the story of the Nash family hit the headlines two weeks ago, most media commentators seemed supportive of their use of embryo selection to have a disease-free child who was also a tissue match for his older sibling. But then, the next day, the story of the Mastertons emerged: a couple who would like to use embryo sex selection to have a female child, after their only daughter died in a bonfire accident.

Public opinion (as much as it can be inferred from media commentary) seemed to be clear: the Nashes were to be applauded because their request was a medical one. But the Mastertons were derided by nearly everyone for seeking sex selection for what looked like social reasons. All seemed pretty clear: medical reasons are good, but social ones are bad. And then along came a Spanish couple to put the cat amongst the proverbial pigeons.


The unnamed couple have had embryo selection to avoid haemophilia not in their own children, but in their children's children (see 'Screening for healthy grandchildren' for more details). Thus, their reason for having the procedure is not entirely medical, since their own children are not at risk. But was their request for treatment social either?


These three cases show that hard and fast rules in reproductive technologies often fail to account for the nuances of real life. For it turns out that Mrs Masterton, having undergone a sterilisation, will require IVF to conceive anyway. So, given that she is already having the invasive procedure in order to get pregnant, would requesting that the embryos she does have transferred are female be so very different from the case of the Spanish couple - or even the Nashes? Such matters are rarely black and white - for scientific and ethical reasons - so was it wise to have completely ruled out all 'social' requests for sex selection?


The HFEA (the UK's IVF regulator) is currently deciding whether further regulation of embryo screening technology is warranted. They have already outlawed sex selection for anything other than avoiding a gender-linked condition. After the experience of the past few weeks, it would seem sensible to avoid drawing up hard and fast rules. Instead, a flexible framework of regulation that allows for life's little complications is the right way forward.

Related Articles

Image by Bill Sanderson via the Wellcome Collection, © Wellcome Trust Ltd 1997. Depicts the gyri of the Thinker's brain as a maze of choices in biomedical ethics (based on Auguste Rodin's 'The Thinker').
CC BY 4.0
Image by Bill Sanderson via the Wellcome Collection, © Wellcome Trust Ltd 1997. Depicts the gyri of the Thinker's brain as a maze of choices in biomedical ethics (based on the sculpture 'The Thinker' by Auguste Rodin).
Comment
18 June 2009 • 3 minutes read

Gender selection and the 'Human Reproductive Technologies and the Law' report: a personal view.

by Alan Masterton

As a father who has fought to use gender selection, we of course always knew that what we sought for our family was the right thing for our particular circumstances. We never tried to suggest our moral standards were right for everyone. We certainly never tried to impose our moral...

Image by Peter Artymiuk via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts the shadow of a DNA double helix, on a background that shows the fluorescent banding of the output from a DNA sequencing machine.
CC BY 4.0
Image by Peter Artymiuk via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts the shadow of a DNA double helix, on a background that shows the fluorescent banding of the sequencing output from an automated DNA sequencing machine.
News
9 June 2009 • 2 minutes read

Couple abandon attempts to have IVF baby girl

by BioNews

A UK couple whose only daughter died following a bonfire accident have abandoned their attempts to have a baby girl using embryo sex selection. Alan and Louise Masterton applied to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) for permission to use preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) to choose their baby's sex...

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

« On nappies, cigarettes and the media

Data-Label The UK's Leading Supplier Of Medical Labels & Asset Labels

RetiringDentist.co.uk The UK's Leading M&A Company.
easyfundraising
amazon

This month in BioNews

  • Recent
27 June 2022 • 4 minutes read

Thirty years of PET: our 'Fertility, Genomics and Embryo Research' report

27 June 2022 • 5 minutes read

Children's rights and donor conception: What next?

20 June 2022 • 4 minutes read

The problems with lifting donor anonymity earlier

20 June 2022 • 6 minutes read

An adaptive act: How should human fertilisation and embryology legislation respond to scientific and technological change?

13 June 2022 • 1 minute read

A new look for BioNews

Subscribe to BioNews and other PET updates for free.

Subscribe
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS
Wellcome
Website redevelopment supported by Wellcome.

Website by Impact Media Impact Media

  • Privacy Statement
  • Advertising Policy
  • Thanks and Acknowledgements

© 1992 - 2022 Progress Educational Trust. All rights reserved.

Limited company registered in England and Wales no 07405980 • Registered charity no 1139856

Subscribe to BioNews and other PET updates for free.

Subscribe
PET PET

PET is an independent charity that improves choices for people affected by infertility and genetic conditions.

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS
Wellcome
Website redevelopment supported by Wellcome.

Navigation

  • About Us
  • Get Involved
  • Donate
  • BioNews
  • Events
  • Engagement
  • Jobs & Opportunities
  • Contact Us

BioNews

  • News
  • Comment
  • Reviews
  • Elsewhere
  • Topics
  • Glossary
  • Newsletters

Other

  • My Account
  • Subscribe

Website by Impact Media Impact Media

  • Privacy Statement
  • Advertising Policy
  • Thanks and Acknowledgements

© 1992 - 2022 Progress Educational Trust. All rights reserved.

Limited company registered in England and Wales no 07405980 • Registered charity no 1139856