In its recent report Human Reproductive Technologies and the Law, the House of Commons’ Select Committee on Science and Technology insisted that the United Kingdom ‘does not take a purely insular view’ on sex selection but to carefully consider the impact on other countries before allowing changes to current legislation. True, no country is an island, not even
          the British Isles. Still, outlawing a harmless practice in Great Britain because of its alleged harmful effects in other countries is bad public policy

Dahl, Edgar

PhilPapers

10RBMOnline - Vol 11. No 1. 2005 10–11 Reproductive BioMedicine Online; www.rbmonline.com/Article/1830 on web 1 June 2005In its recent report ‘Human Reproductive Technologies andthe Law’ (House of Commons, 2005), the Select Committeeon Science and Technology of the House of Commons inLondon has taken an exceptionally strong liberal stance onthe regulation of assisted human reproduction in the UnitedKingdom. The report concluded that there is no adequatejustification for a prohibition of germline engineering,reproductive cloning or the creation of hybrids andchimeras for research purposes. Moreover, it urged thelegislator to reconsider the removal of gamete donoranonymity and to abolish the welfare of the child provision.Notwithstanding the preposterous accusation of havingdrafted a ‘Frankenstein Report’, the Select Committee onScience and Technology deserves everyone’s applause forits courage to adopt an approach consistently based on thepresumption in favour of liberty (Dahl, 2004).Peculiarly, most of the media’s attention focused almostexclusively on the report’s recommendation that couplesundergoing IVF should be allowed to use preimplantationgenetic diagnosis (PGD) to choose the sex of their children.Thus, most news headlines read like ‘Church CriticisesBaby Sex Selection Report’ (Guardian, 2005), ‘OpinionSplit on Baby Gender Report’ (Daily Mail, 2005) or‘Parents Could Pick Babies’ Sex’ (BBC, 2005). The media’sundue attention to the issue of sex selection is all the moresurprising as the report’s reflections on social sex selectionare unwontedly cautious.Despite the report’s bold statement that there is ‘noadequate justification for prohibiting the use of sexselection for family balancing’, it engages in a ratherlengthy and awkwardly timid discussion about the impactany UK legislation may have on other countries. Referringto Josephine Quintavalle’s objection that by permittingsocial sex selection ‘the UK would become a moralaccomplice to the abuses against women taking place incountries such as India and China’ (CORE, 2003), thereport states: ‘It is important that the United Kingdom doesnot take a purely insular view. What is allowed here will, ofcourse, be cited as a precedent by other countries. It mayalso make it harder for the UK to criticise sex selection inother countries, however abominably it is presently carriedout, for instance by the murder of baby girls or by abortion.In terms of future-proofing, it is also important to considerthat PGD may through scientific advance become muchmore widely available in other countries, for instance forsex selection in China or India, the countries most cited ashaving a demographic imbalance of the sexes. The UKshould carefully consider the current evidence about suchimbalances there before allowing blanket changes to ourcurrent laws and regulations on sex selection’ (House ofCommons, 2005).As is widely known, heavily skewed sex ratios do indeedpose a serious problem in some Asian countries, mostnotably in India, China, and South Korea (Hudson and DenBoer, 2004). In India, thousands of girls are abandoned,neglected or even killed immediately after birth every year(Carmichael, 2004). The introduction of prenatal testingand selective abortion has apparently skewed the sex ratioof some regions of India so that there are now only 790 girlsfor every 1000 boys (Sen, 2003). In February 2003, theIndian parliament took action by amending its‘Preconception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques(Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act of 1994’. Doctorsviolating the Act now face a prison sentence of up to 5 yearsor a fine of 10,000–50,000 Rupees. Despite increasedefforts to enforce the Act, however, the practice of sexselective abortions seems to be continuing (Gentleman,2005).CommentaryNo country is an island: comment on the Houseof Commons report Human ReproductiveTechnologies and the LawEdgar DahlCentre for Dermatology and Andrology, Justus Liebig University Giessen, 14 Gaffky Street, 35392 Giessen, GermanyEmail: Correspondence: e-mail: Edgar.Dahl@derma.med.uni-giessen.deAbstractIn its recent report Human Reproductive Technologies and the Law, the House of Commons’ Select Committee on Scienceand Technology insisted that the United Kingdom ‘does not take a purely insular view’ on sex selection but to carefullyconsider the impact on other countries before allowing changes to current legislation. True, no country is an island, not eventhe British Isles. Still, outlawing a harmless practice in Great Britain because of its alleged harmful effects in other countriesis bad public policy.Keywords: preimplantation genetic diagnosis, public policy, sex ratio, sex selection11Commentaries - Human reproductive technologies and the law - E DahlThere are religious as well as economic reasons whyIndians prefer boys over girls. According to Hinduism, aman who has failed to sire a son cannot achieve salvation.Only a male descendant can perform the last funeral rites toensure the redemption of the departed soul (McGivering,2003). More importantly, Indian custom has it that theparents of a girl are expected to pay a dowry for hermarriage. The dowry payments are considerable. Theyextend from £2500 to £75,000 sterling (Amanpour, 2003).To marry off one or more daughters is therefore a hugefinancial burden. Since girls are a liability and boys are anasset, Indian couples have a strong incentive for seeking sexselective abortions. Medical practitioners offeringultrasound scans for sex determination have takenadvantage of the excessive dowry demands when theyadvertised their services with the slogan ‘Invest 500 Rupeesnow, save 500,000 Rupees later!’No doubt, it could be argued that India’s predicament doesnot only call for national but for international efforts todesign social policies likely to eradicate the religious andeconomic roots of its widespread son preference. However,that is not the question. The question is: does the practice ofsocial sex selection in India justify prohibiting social sexselection in the UK? The simple answer is: most certainlynot! First, preventing British couples from choosing the sexof their children will not change the sex ratio of India.Second, even if it is only meant to ‘send a message’, it issimply naïve to assume that Indian families will appreciateour gesture, well-meaning as it may be. As long as there arereligious and economic incentives for preferring boys overgirls, our moral plea will fall on deaf ears on thesubcontinent. Third, legalizing social sex selection in GreatBritain in no way jeopardizes our right to criticize thepractice of social sex selection in India. Approving of socialsex selection through cytometric sperm separation or PGDdoes not imply that we have to approve of social sexselection through abortion or infanticide. Fourth, and mostimportantly, denying British couples the opportunity tohave a daughter because Indian couples have killed theirgirls would amount to punishing the innocent. There is nomoral justification whatsoever for punishing the people ofone country for actions committed by the people of another(Dahl, 2003, 2005; Doyal and McLean, 2005; Schulmanand Karabinus, 2005).Hence, it is to be hoped that the Department of Health willgraciously ignore the Select Committee’s misguidedruminations on social sex selection when reviewing theHuman Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990.ReferencesAmanpour C 2003 For the Love of Money. CBS News of 5October 2003.BBC 2005 Parents Could Pick Babies’ Sex. BBC, March 24,2005. Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4376041.stm[accessed 26 April 2005]Carmichael M 2004 No Girls, Please! Newsweek of 26 January2004.CORE 2003 Sex selection: choice and responsibility in humanreproduction. A response by J Quintavalle of Comment OnReproductive Ethics (CORE) to the Human Fertilisation andEmbryology Authority’s (HFEA) Public Consultation on SexSelection. CORE, London, UK.Dahl E 2005 Preconception gender selection: a threat to thenatural sex ratio Reproductive BioMedicine Online 10 (supp.1), 116–118. Dahl E 2004 The presumption in favour of liberty: a comment onthe HFEA’s public consultation on sex selection. ReproductiveBioMedicine Online 8, 266–267.Dahl E 2003 Procreative liberty: the case for preconception sexselection. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 7, 380–384.Daily Mail 2005 Opinion Split on Baby Gender Report. DailyMail, March 24,2005). Source:http://uk.news.yahoo.com/050324/344/fezkj.html [accessed 31May 2005] orhttp://icsuttoncoldfield.icnetwork.co.uk/news/natnews/tm_objectid=15332034&method=full&siteid=52630&headline=opinion-split-on-baby-gender-report-name_page.html [accessed 31May 2005].Doyal L and McLean S 2005 Choosing children: intergenerationaljustice? Reproductive BioMedicine Online 10 (suppl. 1),119–124.Gentleman A 2005 India still fighting to ‘Save the Girl Child’.International Herald Tribune, 15 April 2005. Source:http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/04/14/news/india.html[accessed 31 May 2005].Guardian 2005 Church Criticises Baby Sex Selection Report.Guardian, 24 March 2005. Source:http://society.guardian.co.uk/health/news/0,8363,1444926,00.html[accessed 26 April 2005]House of Commons 2005 Human Reproductive Technologies andthe Law. Fifth report of session 2004-05. The StationeryOffice, London, UK, 1, 64.Hudson V, Den Boer A 2004 Bare Branches: The SecurityImplications of Asia’s Surplus Male Population. MIT Press,Cambridge, USA.McGivering J 2003 India targets female foeticide. BBC News, 15February 2003. Source:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2765853.stm[accessed 31 May 2005].Schulman JD, Karabinus DS 2005 Scientific aspects ofpreconception gender selection. Reproductive BioMedicineOnline 10 (suppl. 1), 111–115.Sen A 2003 Missing women – revisited. British Medical Journal327, 1297–1298.Received and accepted 21 April 2005.

No Country Is An Island

https://philpapers.org/archive/DAHNCI.pdf

No Country Is An Island

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

PhilPapers