# 'Parents queue to select baby gender' - Jinemed now being investigated



## minttuw

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7696698.stm


----------



## bubbles06

hi
thought i would reply to this post,i have to say i totally and utterly disagree with this,why should doctors and patients be able to create a baby under these circumstances,when me and dh have our longed for baby the sex will never be an issue as our baby will be such a miracle,that whether its a male or female will not matter in the slightest.Ive watched a program about this before with a lady and her husband going to cyprus to try to have a girl,she already has 3 boys i think,to me this is just selfish as they should be already so happy with what they have been given,some people are sometimes destined for boys as some are destined for girls,if you have 1 of each well that is absolutely fab,but you should not be any less happy because you haven't got what you would like,as the saying goes (as long a the baby is healthy)i 100% agree with this,it just comes down to the fact tha some people are utterly greedy,sorry if this upsets anyone but it is how i feel,


----------



## Spaykay

I feel similar, saw that programme too about the family with boys and just hope they donated the male embrios that were rejected.

Kay xxx


----------



## minttuw

I just noticed there is a discussion of this on the Jinemed Clinic Board and some people have already sent very well phrased complaints letters to BBC.
http://www.fertilityfriends.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=137113.900

I completely agree with them - another ridiculous, scandalous reporting from BBC.

Minty


----------



## Huldra

What is also rather annoying about the BBC reporting is that it (again) puts IVF treatment overseas in a bad light. It is always treated as a problem, causing huge expenses for the NHS. Well, overseas countries differ in what they offer, and some countries actually have even stricter rules than UK. I don't agree with the kind of treatments everyone offers, but I really don't like being made to feel bad because I had my treatment overseas!


----------



## Han72

Yup, BBC strikes again. Having scared the living daylights out of people who were going to the ARGC they've now turned their sights on overseas treatment and messed up everyone who is supposed to be going to Turkey.  Nice one Auntie.

For a change I actually find myself feeling glad I don't live in the UK right now as the knowledge that my license fee was being used to fund this kind of scaremongering would make me mad as hell!


----------



## Lorna

Another piece of gutter reporting by the BBC.  I wonder who put them up to it.  Maybe I am paranoid, but considering how close the BBC and the HFEA are.....  

In case anyone hadn’t noticed   I am pro deregulation.  

I am in favour of you being able to decide how many embryos are transferred; of you being able to import vials of sperm from the US; of you being able to decide what sort of donation you want; of you not being forced to fill in forms, like the Welfare of The Child form, that you had to do, once upon a time; and so on, but that means you have to accept that sex selection is allowed.

If you want sex selection banned, then you are voting for restrictions, and therefore, you are voting to be told, how to do donation, voting to being forced to transfer only one embryo, voting for the method of donation selected for you, and so on.

Sex selection, to me, is the marker, that shows that we are allowed to make our own choices, when it comes to infertility treatment.

I want choice so for me, I think sex  selection should be allowed.

Moving on, I think there are other arguments for sex selection.

Years ago, one of my friends who was pregnant went to hospital, that refused, at the 20 week scan, to tell her the sex of her child.  Why?  Because so many of the girl foetuses “miscarried” in the next few weeks.

I struggled for a while, trying to work out how those girl babies were lost, and came to the conclusion, that the pregnant women were going through late abortions.   If a society, does not value females, then putting women through 1,2 5…. late abortions is nothing.  And the only way to stop women’s suffering was to allow sex selection.

There was also the case of the family who had 4 boys, and then a girl.  Their 8 year old girl, had fallen onto a bonfire and they  wanted to have another girl.  I strongly suspect that boy 3, and boy 4 knew they were the “wrong” sex.

And if the parents only wanted 3 children, but then had 5 girls followed by a boy, there will be additional stresses on the parents, and inevitably the children, because they had so many extra children.  I am not saying big families are bad, only that having lots of children, to balance a family, is bad, if all you wanted was 2/3 children.

I just wonder how many other unpleasant things are happening.  These things are hidden from us, and therefore very difficult to define, let alone quantify.

More recently, the government’s Science and Technology Committee’s report, in March 2005, began me thinking in another direction.
The government’s Science and Technology Committees says in their conclusion page 175, point 3, that the government should only get involved in parental decisions, when, it can be clearly demonstrated, that harm would occur, if someone, didn’t get involved.

Family balancing, is a very personal decision, that a couple might take.  And if you look, the research that shows the probable effects on society of allowing, sex selection.  Nothing really horrible happens if you allow it

It is all about reproductive choices.  I want to have a child without interference from the state (no Welfare of the Child).  I, in conjunction with my doctor, want to decide how many embryos to transfer (No enforced SET).  If I and my doctor think pre implantation genetic testing, is the right thing to do, then I want to able to do it, without having to get permission of anyone.  I want to be able to meet my donor, before treatment starts.  And so on.

When it comes to my reproductive choices, I want freedom.  I want to able to make my own decisions.  So it seems to put it, mildly, illogical to prevent others from making choices, I may not agree with, like sex selection.

So I am favour of lifting of all controls.  It is either that, or have the HFEA ,make *ALL* my decisions!

Lorna


----------



## Charlies-Mum

Lorna

Whilst I agree with you on some of the points you are talking about opening up a huge can of worms.

What you are potentially talking about would destroy what little support the NHS can offer. 
If everyone had a 'right' to chose the sex of the baby, then not only are you telling those that have IF issues to go done the Assisted reproduction route, but suddenly those who can concieve and carry a child to term naturally also must have a right to the same technology otherwise it is discrimination. 

Likewise removing the limit on the number of embryos that can be put back  is not only highly dangerous but the as we have seen the cost and resources required to look after and sustain premature sextuplets (for example) is huge. Who do you propose funds this?

I'm using the two examples above to play devils advocate. I don't agree with everything that HFEA stands for but I do believe that we need boundrys to work within to stop the chaos that would surely ensue.
I'm not deliberately disagreeing with what has been said, I just don't think that a 'free-for-all' is the way forward

Deb


----------



## leoaimee

I feel really strongly that choosing the sex of a child is morally wrong. Just because we can do something doesnt mean we should.

Restrictions and Regulations are a really important part of all of societies institutions to allow for reasoned decisions to be made for the good of the whole society not just the individual. Obviously no institutions are perfect and contsant revisions and checks are essential to ensure their good, safe and moral running.

surely the most important thing that a parent must do is love their child for who they are, however that child turns out to be. We all may have ideas about what we think is important for our families but at the end of the day we are nurturing and fostering children to be ultimately themselves.

Surely the most important thing for a parent to learn is to love the child *unconditionally* ... not because the child is a boy or a girl or clever or pretty or because they lost a boy child and want a replacement As soon as we start 'designing' babies to fit our idea of what they should be like we loose something fundamental.



Lorna said:


> If you want sex selection banned, then you are voting for restrictions, and therefore, you are voting to be told, how to do
> Years ago, one of my friends who was pregnant went to hospital, that refused, at the 20 week scan, to tell her the sex of her child. Why? Because so many of the girl foetuses "miscarried" in the next few weeks.
> 
> I struggled for a while, trying to work out how those girl babies were lost, and came to the conclusion, that the pregnant women were going through late abortions. If a society, does not value females, then putting women through 1,2 5&#8230;. late abortions is nothing. And the only way to stop women's suffering was to allow sex selection.


lorna, im a little troubled if im correct in thinking you think sex selection is the best remedy to late abortions for unwanted girls. surely tighter regulation on the reasons for later abortions. PLUS combatting societies prefrences for boys. It is a sad state of affairs to just think we should allow sex choice because some cultures think that having boys is better or have more social value. this makes me very sad.

aimee


----------



## Han72

Can I ask why do so many people who are against sex selection 
- assume that anybody who wants it is desperate for a boy? 
- assume that it's a cultural thing?
- assume that if parents have a boy when they wanted a girl or vice versa would love that child any less?

I suppose these points are linked really, it does seem that many people assume that anybody who wants to be able to choose the sex of their child is from one of those countries/cultures where boys are valued more than girls. But this always isn't the case is it? I'm sure many of us know or know of a family who've had all boys and would have loved a girl or vice versa. So they just keep trying and trying only to end up with huge families of all boys or all girls. But the parents don't automatically neglect or mistreat the kids as a result of their disappointment. Even where it is due to cultural issues, where is the evidence that the child is _always _ unloved because it was the wrong sex? Yes in some dreadful situations, babies are abondoned or aborted late but I really believe that this is the minority and for the most part people accept that this is what was meant to be and love their child(ren) just the same.

Having said that, I would disagree with the view that this should be totally deregulated because we need to protect children from that minority of parents who feel justified in aborting/abandoning/mistreating a child simply because it's the "wrong" sex. However, I would say that if the choice is between late term abortions / abandonment / neglect, or allowing people to choose at conception then, within certain limits and only under certain cirumstances, sex selection should be allowed.

As such, I think the HFEA would be serving our needs better in investigating and legislating on this subject, rather than dictating to the professionals that they should go for SET (apparently regardless of the individual patient's cirumstances) or wasting our money on orchestrating media witch hunts on the most successful clinics.


----------



## leoaimee

Hi Nix

just to clarify.  im against sex selection for boys or girls.  

when i said some cultures think that having boys is better i wasnt excluding a culture that i may or may not be a part of.  its a cultural thing in as much as our attitudes to gender are cultural. Attiudes to gender vary from culture to culture, across different countries, classes, and subsets of culutres within cultures, even families can be described as having a certain culture.  it is within that context that i use the term culture.

hope that clears up any confusion!

aimeex


----------



## Lorna

Charlies-Mum said:


> Whilst I agree with you on some of the points you are talking about opening up a huge can of worms.
> 
> What you are potentially talking about would destroy what little support the NHS can offer.


What NHS offering? In theory, you can get plastic surgery on the NHS, but even if you have some disfigurement you will wait years for treatment.

I have concerns about NHS treatment. I have heard the odd person say, "I'll agree to eSET, if I can have 3 cycles of treatment on the NHS." Hmmm!

In order to just have a 4% decrease in pregnancy rates between eSET and DET (Dual Embryo transfer), a clinic must have top quality staff, the best of the best facilities, and stunningly good procedures. If you don't have those things, pregnancy rates are a lot lower with eSET, than DET.

The way the UK is placed in the league tables of success rates, makes me think a fair chunk of UK clinics don't come up to those high quality standards. And NHS facilities tend to be at the bottom of most of the league tables.

In order to get most clinics, up to kind of standards, needed to implement eSET, each and every clinic is going to need millions of pounds of investment, including NHS hospitals. Can you see that happening?

In somewhere like Belgium, even with eSET, on average it takes 2 cycles of treatment for a woman to get pregnant. In somewhere like the UK, it takes over 3 DET cycles, and with eSET it is guesstimated that it will take 5 cycles. Remember NHS hospitals are lower down the league tables, so it will probably take more cycles.

Despite the fact that we chose to ignore the risks of treatment, and despite the fact that the HFEA considers that undergoing treatment is nothing worse than having a bad hair day, infertility treatment does carry the risk of sterility, disability, and death. *Nobody* in the UK collates accurate figures for complications, but I guesstimate, one woman dies every 2 years, around 3 become sterile each year, and more suffer serious heart, lung, or brain damage.

Putting women through low quality treatment, with little chance of success (NHS plus eSET) seems to me to be wrong. It just feels to me, like desperate women, are being forced into taking extra risks, for that desperately longed for child. I find it morally repugnant that desperate couples are being allowed to go through a high risk procedure (NHS IVF), that the stats say has little chance of success. But in my deregulated world, anyone is allowed to take any risks they like.

So , yes I want to see an expansion of NHS provisions, but I want to see an expansion of *quality* provision.

In the same vein, I also have trouble accepting egg sharing as well. In some cases egg sharers are given / take (?) slightly more drugs than they would, if they didn't egg share, and so increase the chance of complications. So because of the risks, I, personally, find egg sharing unpalatable. OK, I am way too old, and never gonna egg share, so it is OK for me to be on my moral high horse, you are right, but&#8230;. if there were 3 cycles of high quality treatment in the NHS, how many egg sharers would egg share? Certainly some would. But what percentage of egg sharers would still share eggs? Again it feels like desperate people forced into a corner. Convince me I am wrong.

Yes I do want 3 cycles, correction, because of eSET, I want 5 cycles, of the best of the best treatment, available on the NHS. Straight IVF would be a good start. The NHS can put restrictions on donor treatment, sex selection, whatever . It already makes it next to impossible for some people to get treatment, whether that is hip replacement, cancer treatment or IVF. But I am uncomfortable with a wholesale increase in treatment, without a corresponding massive increase in quality of treatment. Well in the restrictive world of IVF in the UK, the two do seem to be related. In my deregulated world, yes lets expand NHS treatment.




Charlies-Mum said:


> Likewise removing the limit on the number of embryos that can be put back is not only highly dangerous but the as we have seen the cost and resources required to look after and sustain premature sextuplets (for example) is huge. Who do you propose funds this?
> Deb


There is good scientific evidence that women over 40, and particularly over 42 stand a significantly better chance of getting pregnant, if they transfer 5 embryos. Last time I looked a woman at 42 stands a 5% chance of getting pregnant with 3 embryos, but nearer a 40% with chance with 5 embryos. IVF treatment carries a small, but very risk of serious complications. Yet the HFEA has not seen fit to update it's advice, and let women 42 and over transfer 5 embryos, but it seeks to restrict the number of embryos that women can transfer to women under 36! Why?

The problem I have eSET, is that the HFEA has over estimated the risks to mother and baby, glossed over any risks to women going through treatment, and completely ignored the problems that other children in the family face. The HFEA has issued, IMO, a string of propaganda documents to support their case. Like all propaganda, it has elements of truth, but the HFEA makes it hard to pick out what is the truth, and what isn't. Because when I examine something published by the HFEA, I find there are, IMO, some serious holes in the data, I, personally have a problem with advice given out by the HFEA. If they would just be straight with us,I would fell a whole lot better.

And the other thing about risks and infertility treatment, the UK bans what is a relatively low risk procedure(sex selection), but allows procedures that have a relatively high risk of complications, for both men, women, and the children created (ICSI with TESE or MESE). There is no logic to what is banned, and what isn't.

I also have read the government's Science and Technology Committee's report, in March 2005., and one of the things they commented on, was that considering all the other risky decisions we are allowed to make, it is an anomaly that, when it comes to infertility treatment, we are not allowed to make those same kind of risky decisions.



aimeegaby said:


> lorna, im a little troubled if im correct in thinking you think sex selection is the best remedy to late abortions for unwanted girls. surely tighter regulation on the reasons for later abortions. PLUS combatting societies prefrences for boys. It is a sad state of affairs to just think we should allow sex choice because some cultures think that having boys is better or have more social value. this makes me very sad.
> 
> aimee


Yes it is a sad state of affairs that some societies value boys over girls, but that is the way it is, right now. It takes along time to change societies views, and meanwhile women are suffering right now. Should we say, tough, suffer, or do something about it.

And going back to the original article, it is clear there is plenty of demand for sex selection. Should we force those couples to go to Russia for treatment? I am sure Russia is delighted to have all those foreign patients, flocking to their country for treatment. Look at all the jobs that are created, not just at clinics, but at hotels, restaurants etc. And al that tax revenue that can be used by the Russian citizens for their schools, roads, hospitals etc.

Or should the UK, be trying to create jobs, raise tax revenues, and so on, so you have your cycles of high quality treatment on the NHS?

Lorna


----------



## leoaimee

hay lorna

just to reply on your last point.  I dont think just because one country does something, and some people might choose to visit that country to do it legally there means we should worry about the loss of revenue to our country if we dont find it acceptable ethically.  just because something might happen in one country doesnt mean we should have it here, for example legalised prostitution or assisted suicide.

Social attitudes to things can and do often change very quickly.  For example attitudes to homosexuality have changed massively over the last 50 years.  Women didnt have the vote in this country until the early part of the 20th century and now its something we take for granted.  Attitudes to race in britain have changed considerably in the last 40 years. so things do change and its important that they change in away that is benificial to society.

but really my main argument is that we shouldnt allow choice of gender for our children because as parents need to love them for who they are not what we want them to be.

love,
ax


----------



## Charlies-Mum

Just to confirm I strongly believe that SET (or not) should be agreed between the potential parents and their medical professionals based on their individual circumstances. I do not believe a 'one-size fits all' policy of Single Embryo Transfer is the way to go ahead.

My previous post was concerned with large number of embryos (i.e. more than 3-4 depending on age) being put back causing potentially very high risks to both the mothe and her unborn children.


----------



## Lorna

Great discussion

Well let's throw another thing into the pot.  A few years ago, I saw a TV spot on a woman who could get pregnant at the drop of a hat.  After umpteen miscarriages, she found out, that she carried a faulty gene, that prevented her children living.  She was advised to go through IVF, and PGD the embryos.

Well in cycle 1, all the embryos carried the faulty gene, and that was also true in cycle 2.  in cycle 3, one, and only one embryo was clear, and that resulted in her beautiful child.

After all these cycles of IVF, this very fertile woman, knew just what we go through.  She really understood, and spoke out in a very positive way, about IVF.  I wonder, if more fertile couples went through IVF, they too would understand, and perhaps there would not be so many uninformed comments in the press.

Lorna


----------



## leoaimee

hay lorna 

that is v interesting ... but would you class that woman as fertile if the over riding number of pregnancies ended in mc due to the gene?  i would say she had fertility issues for sure.

aimeex


----------



## encore

probably lorna.  but it's a pretty extreme way of getting understanding from the 'fertile' community!


----------



## encore

aimeegaby said:


> hay lorna
> 
> just to reply on your last point. I dont think just because one country does something, and some people might choose to visit that country to do it legally there means we should worry about the loss of revenue to our country if we dont find it acceptable ethically. just because something might happen in one country doesnt mean we should have it here, for example legalised prostitution or assisted suicide.
> 
> Social attitudes to things can and do often change very quickly. For example attitudes to homosexuality have changed massively over the last 50 years. Women didnt have the vote in this country until the early part of the 20th century and now its something we take for granted. Attitudes to race in britain have changed considerably in the last 40 years. so things do change and its important that they change in away that is benificial to society.
> 
> but really my main argument is that we shouldnt allow choice of gender for our children because as parents need to love them for who they are not what we want them to be.
> 
> love,
> ax


totally agree. lets also take female circumcision and relate it to the late term abortion argument. It happens in many cultures, it probably happens in the UK, maybe women are even sent back to their country of ethnic origin to have it performed. So if we make it legal and perform the operation under a sterile environment in the UK then that would make it ok? Certainly it would mean the women would suffer less. Less woman would suffer horrific disfigurement and infections. Less women would die. so why not offer it in the UK? Because slicing off a woman's genitals and sewing her up to the size of a peanut to make her more womanly is an abhorent practice.

These pregnant women who were going through late abortions. Were they going through them because they wanted to? Or because they were forced to? There is a big difference. Sure, given the choice perhaps they would have preffered to have sex selection available to them so they wouldnt be forced into that position in the first place. But maybe they'd prefer to live in a society that places equal value on man as well as women.

As for the deregulation argument, where do you draw the line? at sex selection? height selection, eye color selection, Why?, what's the harm in selecting a boy with blue eyes, if you're selecting a boy anyway and its not too much trouble to select eye color.....might as well hey? Oh and while you're at it.....can I have a straight son please? I don't want a gay one. Or an asthmatic. Or a fat one. Or a short one. And what of the perfectly healthy female embryos? Or the short boys with brown eyes. Shall we flush them down the loo?

Nix i think people assume that its a cultural boy thing (well I do, in the majority of cases anyway) because, many cultures perfer boys. Look at China for example. As a result of their 1 child policy there is now a vastly disproportionate number of males in that country. wonder why?

And I don't assume that parents would love a girl any less. Well, actually I do...a bit. Some of them must do surely. But maybe I'm wrong there. Maybe they _would _ love a girl equally. Its just that they didnt _want _ her equally. "I didnt want you, but I love you anyway."

I find that hard to stomach.


----------



## leoaimee

encore 

i totally agree with you and congratulate you on your well articulated argument!  

aimeexxx


----------



## Lorna

aimeegaby said:


> hay lorna
> 
> that is v interesting ... but would you class that woman as fertile if the over riding number of pregnancies ended in mc due to the gene? i would say she had fertility issues for sure.
> 
> aimeex


Let's start, with what I think is less controversial, but one never knows&#8230;.

The way, I define infertility is, if a couple have been trying to get pregnant, for a period of time, whether that is 6 months, a year or longer, and they haven't succeeded. This woman could get pregnant at the drop of a hat. She didn't have immune issues, which caused the miscarriages. Her other half didn't have male factor infertility, so by my definition she was fertile. Now whether I should define infertility that way is another matter&#8230;&#8230;



aimeegaby said:


> hay lorna
> 
> just to reply on your last point. I dont think just because one country does something, and some people might choose to visit that country to do it legally there means we should worry about the loss of revenue to our country if we dont find it acceptable ethically. just because something might happen in one country doesnt mean we should have it here, for example legalised prostitution or assisted suicide.
> 
> love,
> ax


Prostitution is going to happen whether you like it or not, let's give some protection to the men and women who do it. So having lived in a country with legalised prostitution, I actually think it would be a good idea. You did have to be careful about which nightclub you went to. Some of them did very little vertical dancing.

And having watched my father die, I am totally in favour of assisted suicide.



encore said:


> totally agree. lets also take female circumcision


Female circumcision -Ok yet another example of what is not allowed in the UK, and what happens overseas. As far as I am aware, female circumcision is banned everywhere, but some authorities turn a blind eye. For instance, female circumcision is banned in Egypt, but it still occurs in some more rural areas. It is difficult to stamp it out.

Although I have never looked at the scientific evidence about female circumcision, I strongly suspect it shows how harmful it is.

I, personally, have to check the facts, before I will strongly come out one way or another on a subject. An example of something I am definitely against is Sarah's Law. I can't believe how irresponsible the News of the World has been pushing it through. And an example of undecided on, is drug testing on animals. I have never checked that subject out.

When it comes to infertility, I feel, people are so quick to call for a ban, whereas when I look at banning something, I want the scientific evidence.

I very rarely see, anyone else saying: "let's relax the rules, and make it easier for us to do things." I mostly see, people going, "Oh that's disgusting, let's tighten things up, and make sure that doesn't happen.", when in practice, it just makes it more difficult to do the straightforward things.

When I look at the statistics and the league tables, it seems to me that countries that have few restrictions, are top of the league tables. In the top hospitals in the US, those doctors seem to be the ones coming up the latest innovations, the ones creating the ground breaking treatments, the ones doing the latest research. But if you look at the UK, with all our restrictions, you can't do this, you need a permit to do that, and people wanting yet another thing controlled or banned, then we are way down the league tables of success. I thought people on this board wanted to get pregnant. Well it seems to me, successful treatment and few restrictions go hand in hand.

And for me, a marker of whether we have the kind of free environment, that encourages success, or the kind of environment that suffocates innovation, is whether we allow or ban sex selection.



encore said:


> These pregnant women who were going through late abortions. Were they going through them because they wanted to?


Late abortions. We don't know why these women went through late abortions. The trouble with the restrictive practices, and draconian rules that we have in the UK, is that it drives things underground. And when things are hidden, we can't find out the truth. One of the reasons, I want a free market, is that it brings things out into the open. We can investigate what is going, and that has to be good for the children.



encore said:


> As for the deregulation argument, where do you draw the line? at sex selection? height selection, eye color selection


At the moment we are discussing sex selection. We cannot even begin to select for eye colour, or anything else. I doubt we will be able to do that for a while, and it will take even longer to make it safe. And by then, society will be a different place. And we should evaluate allowing/banning stuff in the light of the society that we live in at that time. So, IMO, discussing anything other than sex selection diverts the argument.



encore said:


> Nix i think people assume that its a cultural boy thing (well I do, in the majority of cases anyway) because, many cultures perfer boys. Look at China for example. As a result of their 1 child policy there is now a vastly disproportionate number of males in that country. wonder why?
> 
> And I don't assume that parents would love a girl any less.


I did it, sorry, bringing in other cultures diverts the argument. We are *not* China or India, we live in Great Britain. Yes there are elements of other cultures here, but the vast majority of the people living in Britain, are white. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2756041.stm 
That means British people seeking to select the sex of their child are going to be overwhelmingly white. And the typical white person seeking sex selection, already has two boys, and wants to have a girl. And I personally see nothing wrong in that.

And I find the question, of whether people love a child more/less, difficult to understand. How do you know in what way parents love/don't love children? I think it is very difficult to evaluate.

So I am still in favour of letting parents select the sex of their child, because for me, sex selection is a marker, for the freedom to make our own decisions, for the ability to get the top quality treatment we so desperately need without having to jump through hoops.

Lorna


----------



## Charlies-Mum

Lorna said:


> The way, I define infertility is, if a couple have been trying to get pregnant, for a period of time, whether that is 6 months, a year or longer, and they havent succeeded. This woman could get pregnant at the drop of a hat. She didnt have immune issues, which caused the miscarriages. Her other half didnt have male factor infertility, so by my definition she was fertile. Now whether I should define infertility that way is another matter


The standard (medical and world recognised) defination of infertility is *the inability to concieve and carry a healthy child to term.* 
I think you would struggle to find someone who would agree with your defination.


----------



## Suzie

Healthy discussion and food for thought!

Personally I do not believe in sex selection for the sake of choosing the gender of you child just because you want a certain sex. I do however in some very few cases know that some people need to use sex selection as they have conditions that are hereditary. 

My fear is that you relax laws on things like sex selection , you open the flood gates for it to be abused.

Personally I feel allowing sex selection for all is playing god and we do not have the right to do so
x

these are my personal opinions not FF's


----------



## levin

Hi everyone,

I do agree with the last post that sometimes sex selection is necessary if there is an hereditary disease that one sex will be affected by - i think that sex selection for any other reason though is absolutely disgusting .
I can't understand why it is so important to some people to have a boy and a girl. I have boy/girl twins - they are only 6 months old but they already have their own little traits and personality's. I love Lola to bits because she is so affectionate - not because she is a girl, and i love Jayden to bits because he is really cheeky and noisy - not because he is a boy. Their gender is neither here nor there to me, its their personalities that matters.
When i am out and about shopping with my babies countless people comment 'Oooh a boy and a girl, you're so lucky', i think no i'm so lucky to have 2 gorgeous children, their gender means nothing to me - i would be equally as happy with 2 boys or 2 girls and would have absolutely no desire to have any more children just so that i could get one of each gender.
I did see a programme a while back about ivf (the Robert Winston one i think), and there was a lady on there who had 4 boys already, absolutely gorgeous boys as well, but she wanted a girl - for some bizarre reason felt that her life wasn't complete without a girl. I felt so, so sorry for her sons - how must they feel knowing that their mums life isn't complete because they are not female and they are obviously not enough for her - all i could think was ' what a selfish b***h'. The rest of the programme was about people who genuinely had fertility problems and i cried when the majority of them had unsucessful treatment - but in all honestly i was happy it didn't work for her - that child would clearly have been her favourite and that just isn't fair to the rest of them.
I feel strongly about this subject: SEX SELECTION SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED UNLESS IT PREVENTS A LIFE THREATENING DISEASE. As someone said in a previous post what will be next - choosing eye colour and hair colour. I know someone said that making this comment diverts the argument - but that is a ridulous comment to make because if you're advocating people having the choice to do whatever they want i.e. choosing the sex of their child, then you can't stop people eventually choosing eye colour etc when technology eventually allows us to.

Love Leanne x


----------



## leoaimee

just to echo what Charlie's Mum says that surely people are trying to have children not pregnancies?

and also just to get back to the reason for having TX is to be parents and to love children unconditionally no matter what or who they are (male, female, thin, fat, clever, funny, pretty, short, tall etc etc) ... Lorna do you think this is a crucial part of being a parent?

im not sure the term 'white' describes a cohesive culture in britain.  and im slightly concerned about where that line of argument is headed.

also i would disagree that british culture doesnt put differnt values on men and women/ boys and girls.  they might not be as extreme as some other cultures for example china.  but british culture certainly does place different values on the two genders.  Girls and caring and boys are competative for example.  i think a parent who can see beyond those gender value and love their child for whoever they are is doing a really good job.

if there was no cultural value placed on difference between males and females then no one would want gender selection on the basis of whim and fancy.


----------



## encore

Sheesh, where do I start? Ok, lots of comments to make, in no particular order. And I warn y'all now, I'm not much good with that quoting who said what feature, so hopefully this'll all make sense.

I'm a bit ambivalent as to the exact definition of infertility. So I'll leave that one alone. I can't understand why anyone would put themselves through the physical and emotional washing machine of IVF if they didn't have to, but hey, that's just me.

I am a bit confused as to your exact position on some things though Lorna. You said in your most recent post you didn't know why these women were going through these late abortions, yet you used the practice of late abortions to support your sex selection argument in one of your earlier posts. So I'm presuming you believe, on some level at least, that they happen because of 'wrong sex' reasons. If this is true I go back to my original point that rather than legislating sex selection to prevent late abortions, more needs to be done to instigate a cultural belief shift.

You also gave me the impression that anecdotal evidence indicated that the late term abortions were predominantly girl babies, in that same earlier post. Yet in your most recent post you came to the conclusion that people who seek sex selection are overwhelmingly white brits, with two boys, who would like a girl. How can you possibly know this?

I also don't understand that simply because there is a certain majority demographic in the UK (ie 'white') that it must therefore follow that that demographic is the most represented (in terms of overall number) when it comes to parents wanting sex selection. How did you reach that conclusion? Is it because you are assuming the desire for sex selection is evenly spread across all demographics in the UK?

I would be most tempted to think that more traditional, country based cultural values would come into play when it comes to parents seeking sex selection. Cultures that historically placed greater value, pride, kudos, whatever - in giving birth to a boy. Cultures where having girl after girl is somehow a bad thing, and shameful, and reflects badly on the family. I'm being crass here, but I think your stereotypical anglo saxon brit might dish out plenty of back slaps, congratulations, and beers as a result of a son and heir, and maybe many might prefer a boy over a girl, whereas other cultures (for example middle eastern culture, and some asian cultures) are more likely to be the cultures that actually do something about preventing girls in the first place - like pursue sex selection.

I'm also struggling with your connection between getting clinics up to the kind of standards needed to implement eSET and de-regulation. In fact I'm not totally sure whether you are anti-regulation, or anti HFEA? But anyway, I'll make a comment on regulation/success rates as it's been bought into the discussion.

Unlike you, I have spent absolutely zero time looking at league tables in other countries. So maybe I'm behind the eight ball here. I just picked the clinic that I thought was most likely help me (ARGC) based on their success rates. I don't know how they compare to overseas rates. And to clarify, I'm talking about live birth rates. So I guess you could argue with me that I haven't checked the 'facts.' So lets just say I base my opinion on a number of 'encore facts' (as I see them).

1. The ARGC has one of the highest success rates in the UK (still the highest? Not sure..? Its been a while since I checked.)
2.	The ARGC operates under the same restrictions as any other clinic in the UK
3.	The ARGC does implement 'ground breaking treatment' (immune tx for example, though by now I guess that is becoming more common). Therefore there is nothing (legally, anyway) stopping other clinics from doing the same. I don't think.

They do all this under HFEA restrictions, therefore you could argue (well, I'm arguing), that the restrictions themselves aren't the overriding obstacle to success rates, but rather, in the UK, most other clincs just aren't up to scratch.

I would argue that the 'one size fits all' approach most other clinics take is the main reason that their success rates are much lower. There is nothing (that I know of) stopping other clinics mirroring the techniques that the ARGC use and potentially matching their success rates. OK, the immune stuff is controversial, and I understand that doctors (mostly) are conservative by nature, but what's to stop them tinkering with hormone dosages on a daily basis, and performing blood tests on a daily basis, frequent scanning, performing EC and ET at the optimum time ("oh, sorry, we don't work evenings or weekends&#8230;."), and taking embryos to blast stage. The ARGC do all this. Few other clinics do. OK, I did say I've not researched other clinics, but a cursory look through this website indicates that most other clinics come nowhere near the individual tailoring like the ARGC.
In my opinion, successful treatment and _quality _ treatment go hand in hand. Not successful treatment and few restrictions. I struggle to understand why there is not more _quality _ treatment in the UK. But the ARGC (and the Lister, from all reports) certainly prove that quality treatment is possible, under the current restrictions.

I guess the obvious answer here when we are comparing the ARGC to NHS clinics is money. It would be very expensive for the underfunded, understaffed underachieving NHS to do this. Blimey, they can barely even afford to give infertile couples their one bite of the cherry. But I don't believe the answer here is necessarily 'less-restrictions'. The NHS doctor still gets paid regardless of success rates. The private fertility specialist doesn't. Well, gets paid less anyway, cuz people will vote with their feet. There is little motivation for the NHS doctor to do better under the current restrictions. Or maybe less money. Whatever.

I don't think I am diverting the argument by discussing selection on the basis of traits other than sex. You are making an argument for lifting "all controls", therefore, in my opinion, you need to think about the consequences of that. Lifting restrictions on sex selection will automatically have a ripple effect. Lifting restrictions not only gives you greater freedom, but greater consequences. I'll take your word for it that we don't currently have the capability to select on the basis of eye color. So let's look at something less clear cut. Let's take (for the want of a better term) the 'fat' gene. You made an economic argument for sex selection earlier when you talked about patients 'flocking' to Russia for sex selection treatment. Well, the 'fat' gene has been isolated. So why shouldn't parents select their embryos on that basis? Less fat people with less heart disease and diabetes etc burdening our already overstretched NHS. More money for schools here in the UK. Not Russia. And no more fat kids. Not sure if they've found the asthma gene, but again, there is an economic argument to be made there.

If you lift restrictions on one thing, you automatically weaken the argument for restrictions on another. If I can select my kid on the basis of sex, then why not on the basis on their potential to be fat? Or gay? What's the point of having a son if he's gay?

I guess they haven't discovered a gay gene. But I'll bet my last dollar they're looking for it.

Now lets take something even less clear cut. Let's discuss life threatening diseases. Because if I can select on the basis of sex, you can't possibly tell me I CAN'T select on the basis of health!! What about the cancer gene? Take me for example. My mum had breast cancer when she was very, very young. A long time ago. Back in the days when women were embarrassed about it. Lucky for us she did something about it early. 30+ years on and she is still battling it, but still here. There are other members of her family who've died from it. I don't know if it was just bad luck, or if there was some sort of genetic pre-disposion to it. Lets assume that there was a genetic disposition. Lets say back when I was conceived, my mother was able to 'de-select' me on the basis that I have that genetic quirk. There was a chance I'd get breast cancer. Not 100% mind, just a reasonable chance.

Now, I don't want to boast, but here I am, a well educated member of society, I've paid more in taxes to the government than I've taken out, and frankly (and I don't want to boast here) when you get a few champagnes down my neck I am the freakin' life of the party. The world would surely be a poorer place had I been flushed down the loo at the embryo stage. I am being frivolous here, but I think there is a massive moral question to be asked about the unwanted embryos. It really bothers me. I think it should bother others. It is hard to articulate why but I'm trying. Maybe someone else can help me out here. What do we do with the perfectly healthy, fat, gay, asthmatic embryos?

I am 'pro-choice', I'm not sure that 'life' begins at conception, but when we bring these embryos into the world, there is a responsibility there. I can live (though I'm sure others can't) with discarding embryos with serious genetic defects (and what is 'serious' anyway? There's plenty of downs syndrome kids that bring lots of joy to the world), I can see the argument (though I'm not entirely convinced of it) for discarding embryos that may have a pre-disposition to certain diseases, but disposing of embryos because they are the wrong sex? I hope it never comes to that.

You're right, it is difficult to evaluate the way in which parents love/don't love their children. But again, I think you can draw reasonable conclusions here. You talked yourself about the family of the girl who had died in the fire "I strongly suspect that boy 3 and 4 knew they were the wrong sex". Sex selection for 'balance' sake says something to the already existing child/ren. "I wanted another one, I just didn't want another one like you." And I think it says something to the 'selected' child. "If you hadn't been a girl/boy, I wouldn't have wanted you."

So (and I'm going out on a limb here) I think many would agree that, as an absolute minimum, there should at least be some robust discussion about selection on the basis of disease (like the 'cancer' gene). Now if you're (well not you personally, society) is agreed on that, how can you contemplate giving the green light to sex selection, simply because we should be "free to make our own decisions"?


----------



## Lorna

This has taken a while to respond to the various points made by different posters

First point, late abortions versus selecting embryos

My best guess is that, some women get pregnant, go for a scan, find out the sex, and then terminate the pregnancy. Other women will not get pregnant, and will not have one more child, unless they can guarantee the sex of the child. Could this be to do with cost?

The problem, is that all this stuff, is, by and large, "hidden". I can find virtually no studies, so all I can do is base my comments on what the media reports, the scraps of information that are available on the internet, comments from people I know, and so on. None of it is reliable. What we, all, really need is someone to do, a top quality scientific study, and come up with firm answers, but I can't see that happening in the current climate. How many posters on this board would be outraged, that money was spent on study about sex selection? How many of you would want it spent on something more worthwhile?

One piece of not very reliable evidence, is that my friend went to a hospital, where she was not allowed to find out the sex of her child. The hospital used to give out details of the sex of the child, but so many of those defined as girls disappeared, that the hospital stopped giving out the information. Why? No I don't know what happened to them, and I can't find any studies that have looked into it.

Why do I think, that it is white couples who are going for sex selection? Well all I ever see in the media, are white couples wanting to balance their family. When doctors talk about sex selection, they talk about how the majority of their patients are white. Now we know, and you can check this out, that for every 100 girls born, I think it is 106 boys are born.

It isn't anything sinister. Natural conception creates more boys. There are a zillion theories why. So if more boys are born, that means there are a lot more families with an excess of boys than girls. So a typical family seeking sex selection, is white (well that is what the doctors say) and thanks to nature, is more likely to have boys than girls. So the "typical " couple seeking sex selection is white, and looking to chose a girl.

It doesn't mean that only whites seek to select the sex of their next child, and it doesn't mean that white couples are always seeking to select a girl. I am white, and all my siblings are girls. So if the technology had been available, and my parents wanted to select the sex of the child, then I would have been a boy.

The problem is that very little research has been done on sex selection. Apart from one German study, that concluded, nothing bad would happen, if everyone, who wanted to select the sex of their child was allowed to do so, I haven't seen any papers on sex selection. And without hard scientific data, we are all making our best guesses on what would happen, if sex selection was allowed.

> In fact I'm not totally sure whether you are anti-regulation, or anti HFEA?

Anti HFEA
Anti the mess of law that exists in the UK
Pro law that clearly defines everyone's, rights; responsibilities and duties; and that has an easy to use, confidential conflict resolution system

Anti HFEA: The HFEA, under the HFEA Act 1990 has only two responsibilities
One to write the rules, and 
two "the Welfare of the Child", ie what happens to the egg, sperm and embryo. 
It has no responsibility for the patient, for considering the social aspects of IVF, for constantly improving stuff, and so on. Just two responsibilities nothing more.

When the HFEA was set up, the NHS didn't have all the oversight bodies that it does now, and the HFEA filled those gaps. The NHS has now filled in the gaps, and, to me it seems crazy that *all* medical bodies, bar infertility services, have to satisfy the NHS oversight bodies. Why aren't infertility clinics, ie why isn't the medical stuff of infertility, governed by NHS rules? Why, when it comes to infertility, is the medical stuff done by a separate body, and possibly to a separate set of rules? You need to read the report produced by the Science and Technology committee, published March 2005, for more detailed reasons.

When the HFEA was set up, the remit it was given, was very poorly defined. And since then no one seems to have nailed the HFEA down to what it is supposed to do. Where are the quantifiable, measurable achievable objectives, that someone in receipt of government money must meet. The NHS, as far as I am aware, must meet certain targets, or trusts are fined if they don't. Why doesn't the HFEA have to meet certain objectives? And if it doesn't meet those targets, shouldn't it face a loss of budget?

IMO, the HFEA should have been disbanded about 10 years ago, and their responsibilities picked up by the NHS governing bodies.

I also don't like the way the HFEA has turned the laws of England and Wales on their head. Every last one of our laws, say a person with a birth certificate, is more important than an unborn child. All, except the abortion law, say being born is more important than not being born. IMO, even the abortion law has elements of that too. But the HFEA, puts the interests of the egg, sperm, and embryo above that of the women/couple undergoing treatment, and they also say not being born is better than being born.

I think this arises, because the HFEA has legal responsibility for "the Welfare of the Child", and the fact that the HFEA concentrates on "making babies", and not "creating families". A family is about all its members, mum dad, aunts uncles, existing children, and the potential child, but the HFEA, the rules, the laws, put the potential child at the centre of the universe, and I, personally, think that is very damaging to families - the group.

There is so much I don't like about the HFEA, I could just go on and on. I am still waiting, for someone to tell me what the plus points of having an HFEA are. I haven't found any, but that might be just me.

Anti the mess of law that exists in the UK
Pro law that clearly defines everyone's, rights; responsibilities and duties; and that has an easy to use, confidential conflict resolution system

I think these two go together. I am sick of reading stories in the press, that should never have happened. The adults involved are going to H*** and back. And what about the children. And it is all so unnecessary. A good quality set of laws would prevent most of these things happening, but the UK doesn't have those.

A good quality set of laws, would guide people through this complicated subject, *without* taking away their choices. Instead we have a set of laws, that people are constantly trying to subvert, "egg giving", sending embryos abroad for screening gets round the rules, and so on. And when people start using loop holes, all protection of anybody including the child goes out the window.

Also I am fed up of reading someone's tale of woe on a BB. Thankfully they are rare, but these people are left with no come back against the person who has done them wrong.

California laws, may not be perfect, but, IMO, they are significantly better than the UK. The terrible stories we read in the press, the overwhelming majority could not happen in California. The law doesn't allow those things to happen. Well they can happen, but there are some very severe punishments for those who perpetrate such actions.

In California, when something does go wrong, there are confidential easy to use courts, that sort the mess out quickly. There is so much case law now, that most people can work out what the result will be before they go to court. Everything possible is done to keep a case out of the press.

In California, most are aware that the child at the centre of an acrimonious fight, will grow up. And they want to prevent the adult searching back through the records, and finding out the details of who said what.

In the UK, the only option someone has, is to go to the press. The law is such a muddle, even a barrister can't tell you which way a case will go, until a judge rules. And in the UK, the little people, me, you(?) who find that someone has mislead us, done us wrong, well we have to put up and shut up. We can't afford to hire a barrister, and go to the high court. It wouldn't be worth it for the compensation we would get. And when someone deliberately does us wrong, breaks the law, even when it is prosecuted, the CPS must use other laws, not infertility laws. Infertility treatment is about hopes and dreams, and part of the punishment, IMO, should be about the irreparable damage that is done to someone's world, when you cheat them. Non infertility laws, do not take that into account.

So I want clear precise law, that defines everyone's right, duties and responsibilities. That has a clear, easy to use, confidential, conflict resolution system - a version of the small claims court(?). Laws that have appropriate punishments for those who do wrong. I want strong laws that protect as many people as possible. And I want the law to be fairly applied to everyone. Something I don't feel happens now.

> regulation/success rates
I am looking at all the clinics in any particular country grouped together. not at individual clinics.

Countries at the top of the league tables, seem to have a number of things going for them. One of them is the ability for doctors to have the freedom to chose what is best for their patients.

As far as I am aware, in places like Belgium, if you take government money, then you have to follow certain rules. He who pays the piper&#8230;.

And I believe, if you pay for treatment in Belgium, then within reason, your doctor and you can make the best decisions for you. In the UK, you still have to follow the rules, even if you pay. I think, the blanket rules from the HFEA, lead to people being forced to make poor decisions, and so lessen the chance of success.

>ARGC versus other clinics
This comes down to group/individuals.

Places like the ARGC are top of the league UK tables, but if you average results from every clinic in the UK, we end up 17th out of 23 countries in Europe. If you look at Belgium, I suspect you will find Leuven is top of the league tables, and some of the lesser hospitals may well be below somewhere like the ARGC, but average results from all Belgium clinics, and Belgium is in the top 3 European countries for results. So, IMO, you stand a good chance of getting quality treatment in Belgium, wherever you do.

In the UK, the league tables would suggest, that you have to very careful, which clinic you pick. If the ARGC, Lister, etc. are way out in front, my inference is that some clinics are so bad, that patients will be exposed to all the risks of IVF, without the benefit of getting pregnant. That, IMO, is bad. Not everyone can get to clinics like the ARGC, and some have to use their local clinic, or they may be able to get NHS treatment. Shouldn't everyone have a fighting chance of reasonably good treatment?

What is causing the UK to be so far down in the league tables of success? I think there are many reasons, but I think one trivial reason, is, that the HFEA has no incentive to improve things. The HFEA gets its money whether we are top of the league tables or 100th in the world. The HFEA has to write the rules, but it doesn't have to write rules that encourage constant improvement.

>3. The ARGC does implement 'ground breaking treatment'

My opinion: is only so far.

The ARGC can't do the research for the over 40's. Indications from the US, say at 40, women who produce more than 5 eggs, should be allowed to transfer 5 embryos. I, a non medical person, feel more comfortable with age 42 and over transferring 5 embryos, but that might just be me.

For years, you were not allowed to PGD embryos, for any other reason, than you had a family history of a serious genetic disease. There is increasing evidence, and no I haven't done a proper piece of research on this, but there is increasing evidence, that for women with poor egg quality, PGDing the embryos, and picking the "best", dramatically increases the chance of a woman getting pregnant. I have also seen evidence, that PGDing embryos, lowers the chance of pregnancy, so please do your own research.

So there are classes of research, now, and in the past, that the ARGC cannot / could not do. It is/was against the rules the HFEA have. And the way the HFEA is gunning for Mr Taranissi, IMO, he should steer clear of that stuff. Another reason, I don't like the HFEA, is the way Mr Taranissi is treated, and the way the HFEA does not discipline, directors of other clinics who IMO, appear to be guilty of far more serious breaches of the rules. Just my opinion.

>NHS
My opinion, as I have no data, is that infertility treatment provided by the NHS is chronically under funded. As far as I am concerned NHS staff are equally dedicated as staff at private clinics, it is just that they don't have the same level of resources, which is why success rates are lower.

> Lifting restrictions not only gives you greater freedom, but greater consequences.

I agree freedom to make your own decisions, also carries a responsibility to make good quality decisions. Wish the banks, our leaders, world leaders, and so on, had behaved more responsibly, maybe we wouldn't be facing the current turmoil in the financial markets, and the recession that is staring us in the face.

I think society is about the cult of the individual, without having the checks and balances of owing allegiance to a group.

On the other hand, we the infertile, live in the wider society, that allows individual freedom, but we have to bow to the will of a higher authority, the HFEA. And I am not convinced that higher authority is looking after our best interests. It certainly has no legal responsibility for us

The Science and Technology committee reporting in March 2005, took a look at the kind of decisions we have to make, and compared them to the kind of decisions, millions of Britons make every day. Everyday, many, many adults deal with a lot more hazardous, difficult decisions, than the decisions we make when we chose one treatment over another. So in the Science and Technology committee's opinion, the HFEA should leave us alone to make our own choices.

>selecting embryos, prenatal screening, and terminations.
I think the day, some doctor did the first anti natal test to determine the health of the unborn child, was the day, we let the genie, evil or otherwise, out of the bottle.

Maybe the Catholic church got it right. No selection of embryos to prevent diseases, no prenatal testing, and no possibility of terminations. Those viewpoints certainly make things easy. But I don't think, life is about making things easy, about making things simple.

We have the option, now, to make some very difficult choices, and I for one, I am pleased that we do. I have heard my parents talk about their lives, pre the 60's, and people were so constrained. The masses were not given personal freedom. They were not considered able to make their own decisions. And neither of my parents ever wanted to return to the "Good Old Days". When I look at the laws governing infertility, it feels like the way my parents speak/spoke about the past. People in authority making decisions on my behalf.

So, however hard it is to sort through all the choices we have now, I welcome the option to be able to make my own decisions.

> There's plenty of downs syndrome kids that bring lots of joy to the world
What is counted as a serious genetic defect. Who decides? Perhaps with more support, and if we were all willing, to pay a bit more in taxes, to provide proper care for some of the less severely disabled, then less embryos would be discarded. and less pregnancies would be terminated.

Or on the other hand, maybe more benefits would accrue to society, if we used any extra tax revenue to support naturally conceived children, born into poverty.

And who decides what benefits society? Why is helping impoverished children better than helping the less disabled, or does building a park in the middle of a city benefit more people, is improving public transport better than doing all these things&#8230;&#8230;..

Incredibly complex questions. And no I don't have any answers.

So I think, once we opened the Pandora's box of prenatal testing, we got stuck with deciding, who lives and who dies. Playing God?

Why is this genetic defect not considered worthy of life, but this one is? Why is this set of abnormalities considered too severe, but hare lip, and cleft palate is OK? Even though the disfigurement that can result from those, can leave the person, at a serious disadvantage in a society that values a person's beauty.

Our society places a high value on physical beauty. There have been several studies that show, that people who are taller, who are thinner, who have more symmetrical features, ie those who fit our societies view of beauty, earn more, and are promoted more often. It would put these who are capable, but who suffer from an obvious disfigurement at some disadvantage. It all depends whether you thinks this society is right to value money and power.

As far as I can tell, for a very, very long time, being tall, thin, and beautiful has been valued by our British society. Wasn't there some talk, about wouldn't it be better to change society, to value other things. Well how do you get someone who is capable, but not beautiful to have what our society defines as success? Yes you can define success some other way, and perhaps we should. Metaphysical ideas again.

I am not sure, you will ever be able to shift the values that our society holds, to make people who don't meet our standards of beauty, as highly valued as rich, tall, beautiful people.

Moving on, More dilemmas.

There was one question posed given to an ethics committee, should a deaf couple, be allowed to select an embryo, that has a "deaf gene". The deaf couple argued that they lived in a community of deaf people. The child, as an adult would have the support of other deaf people. And the deaf couple, themselves had very successful lives. So surely by saying no, you were saying deafness is "serious genetic problem", that meant the child was not worthy of life.

Tough call.

But if you say no to the deaf couple, because perhaps you feel a deaf child is at a disadvantage in society, why would you prevent a couple from selecting an embryo, and even when it is possible inserting genes, for intelligence, beauty, health? A child without these attributes would be at a disadvantage, compared to those with them. Surely, if you want the best possible start for your child, you would be irresponsible not to select / insert genes for health, intelligence, and beauty?

Complex questions.

What do I think? Well I don't think the deaf couple should be allowed to deliberately select a child, that has a high chance of being deaf. Why? I think a hearing child has more choices. They can chose to be part of the hearing community or chose to live solely in the deaf community. But by this reasoning, an embryo with the genes for high intelligence, better health, and greater beauty has more options too, so perhaps it should be allowed.

If you reply that, we should love a child whatever, aren't you getting, IMO, dangerously close to the opinions of the Catholic Church, who insist that every child should be born, and cared for. No prenatal testing, no terminations for abnormalities incompatible with life, no PGD to select out hereditary diseases, and so on. You accept whatever God gives you. Including your childlessness.

Why do you not have to accept what nature gave you - childlessness? Why are you allowed to use technology to overcome nature? Why is your use of the technology morally right?

But why do the parents who have 3 children of one sex, and want a 4th child of a different sex , have to accept what nature gave them? Why are they not allowed to use technology to overcome nature? Why is their use of the technology morally wrong?

I am childless. A combination of some incredibly generous people, and technology, have given me the most fantastic gift.

My attitude was, I would use whatever means there was, to achieve my dream. OK Legal and other people not getting hurt does come into it. I will not sit back, and passively accept childlessness. I will do what it takes to have a child.

Aren't the people who have 3 children of one sex, and want a 4th child of a different sex doing the same thing I did. Using technology to achieve their dream. Why is their dream wrong, and mine right?

So, if all this technology had been available when both of us were a twinkle in our parents eyes, the third child in my family would have been a boy, and your family would have had a child that was free of the gene that can cause cancer.

You seem to think the world would be a poorer place, if you personally hadn't been born. I just think the world would have been different, if the third child in our family had been a boy. To me richer, poorer, better, worse, are such subjective terms. Difficult to quantify.

And the families that chose not to have another child, because they already have 3 of one sex, and want the 4th child to be the other sex, and without sex selection, can't guarantee the sex of the 4th child. Is the world a better or worse place because child no 4 wasn't born? Is it better to not be born, than be born with a particular set of characteristics?



levin said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> I do agree with the last post that sometimes sex selection is necessary if there is an hereditary disease that one sex will be affected by - i think that sex selection for any other reason though is absolutely disgusting .
> Love Leanne x


I love it righteous indignation. It feels so good to let it out. Perhaps that is why policies and laws based on it, are "Feel Good Factor" policies and laws. The reason, laws based on moral outrage are called "Feel Good Factor" laws, is that once the law is created, people feel that they have supported something positive, and done some good.

Unfortunately a fair few of the "Feel Good Factor" laws cause more harm than good. The most famous one is Megan's law. Sure, we can't say for certain that this child, in particular, was damaged by the law being in place. but if you look at the consequences of a law, the way people behave, etc., it becomes pretty obvious that, in the US, more children are being abused and dying violent deaths, now, than pre Megan's law.

And the News of the World knew all this, but it still whipped up Righteous Indignation, to get Sarah's Law passed. Right from the very first the News of the World knew what would happen, and just about all the bad things that happen with Megan's law, have occurred during their campaign to get Sarah's Law, but the News of the World cries "We're not responsible."

So we now have the "Feel Good Factor" Law - Sarah's law. How terrible!

I want laws based on evidence, not moral outrage, righteous indignation, religious beliefs, and so on. You seem to disagree.

I am sick and tired of some newspaper, magazine, TV program, running a campaign to get some law introduced. Most of these laws, are based on what sounds good, and, IMO are run to boost circulation figures, audience ratings, etc. Precious few seem to be based on rock solid evidence.

So let's take a subject close to the hearts of most people on this board, treatment on the NHS. I am actually quite glad there are more fertile people around than infertile. I wouldn't wish infertility on anyone.

Well the fertile, see it as completely disgusting that we, the infertile, should take NHS resources from the more deserving cases, for something as trivial as wanting a baby. In their opinion, you can live without a baby, but not with say, cancer treatment. We are portrayed as utterly selfish.

There is a huge outpouring of moral outrage, and we don't get treatment on the NHS. The righteous indignation of the many (the fertile) trump the needs of the few (the infertile).

I, personally, think there is way too much moral outrage, righteous indignation, moral certitude, out there. And perhaps, if there was less, and more decisions were based on evidence, not feelings, there might be bucket loads of low cost/free treatment on the NHS.

But many seem to think that basing laws on the "Eeuuw Factor" is the way to go. I don't. IMO, base policies, laws etc. on evidence.

Lorna


----------



## levin

No offence Lorna but what a load of waffle that was - think you're completely diverting away from the original debate which was simply about sex selection at foreign clinics. I'm all for people having their own opinion and i don't expect anyone to agree with myself but i do think the tone of your posts are extremely condescending and you seem to think you have the moral high ground.
As for your comment that if you love a child no matter what then aren't you getting a bit close to the ideals of the Catholic church - what a load c**p. I am the least religious person you will ever meet. A parents love for a child should be unconditional - if you are not able to love your child unconditionally then you should not be so selfish as to become a parent.
Also i agree with Megans law and Sarahs law - i don't think paedophiles should have any rights in this society - and if we really want to go off topic then i also agree with the death penalty and think it should be brought back. At the end of the day that is my opinion, and i completely respect everyone elses opinion, i certainly wouldn't come on here and try to make everyone else feel like they are stupid because of what they believe - which is what i believe the tone of your post is suggesting.
I agree with you that the HFEA are a waste of space but at the end of the day some degree of regulation is required and as much as i don't agree with them forcing SET on anyone i do agree that 2 embryos should be the limit because of the complications that can occur with higher order multiples - i do sympathise with you though if you are in a position where you feel this amount of embryos would not work for you.
Sorry must go as my little ones need bathing, would just like to add though that i do wish you every luck in any future treatment you undertake.

Love Leanne x


----------



## encore

i'll just make a couple of comments on your post lorna.

for someone who has to "check the facts' one way or another", before having an opinion on something, you sure are opinionated on the 'white people seeking sex selection in order to have girls' thing. From what? Because "all i ever see in the media is white people wanting to balance their families". I'd love to know now many articles have been dedicated to this issue. Having spent about 8 of the last 10 years living in the UK, I can honestly say I have never, ever come across any media report even remotely connected to couples seeking sex selection. I may, of course, have been reading the wrong papers.

Its interesting what you say about your family. I'm presuming you've discussed this with your mother given that you said that had sex selection been available then you would have been a boy. I beg to differ. _You_, wouldnt be here. I wonder how you really feel about that.

This german study intrigues me. I'd love to read it. You said it concluded that 'nothing bad would happen' if sex selection were allowed. I've given this a nanosecond's worth of thought and I can think of at least three things, that I think you will agree, as a minimum, aren't exactly _good_.

1. Perfectly fertile couples paying to go through invasive and possibly dangerous treatment, probably more than once cuz it doesnt always work, to have a child that they can conceive naturally. I don't think anyone knows what the long term effects of the huge doses of hormones required for fertility treatment will be.
2. Perfectly healthy embryos being washed down the drain because they are the wrong sex.
3. Money being diverted from fertility treatment required by infertile couples to be spent on fertility treatment for, errr....fertile couples.

I dont know, nor care about the HFEA stuff you've come out with. But it sounds to me like you personally feel like you've been cheated / abused by them in some way and are using this thread as a platform to have your say about them.

I really am confused about your stance now. You talk about genetic defects, playing god, who should decide, ethical dilemmas about who should live or not yada yada yada "tough call" you say, "serious questions". _Serious questions _ , _serious dilemmas_. Yet you have no dilemma whatsoever about selecting or de selecting embryos on the basis of sex. I don't geddit.

And (I'm an athiest by the way) your catholic church comment was so seriously offensive I'm wondering if you have a beef against them too?


----------



## leoaimee

hi lorna

i didnt read your post it was very long. but thanks to encore and levin for your summaries.

i was really interested in this:

[i]
Its interesting what you say about your family. I'm presuming you've discussed this with your mother given that you said that had sex selection been available then you would have been a boy. I beg to differ. You, wouldnt be here. I wonder how you really feel about that.[/i]

and i think possibly this very very sad fact is where this stems from. im really sorry to hear that your mum would have prefered you to be a boy and im sorry you lived with the idea of being second best. and i hope your mum really got over her disapointment that you were just YOU and not the thing child she imagined.

aimeex


----------

