Arguments For or Against Sex Selection - Literature review Example

Sex selection 9   Running head: Sex selection   Name:    University/ College:   Course:  Lecturer:  Date:  Critically assess arguments for or against sex selection              Giving birth to a healthy baby has been considered a God- given blessing. For reasons they understand best, some parents have a preference for a specific gender. In India, due to the high dowry costs, most parents prefer having boys to girls (King, 2007). As a result, some parents are opting for sex- selection. In Australia though, non- medical sex selection is banned and the National Health and Medical Research Council is debating whether or not to lift the ban. It has given rise to the ethical dilemmas: first, is it right for the Australian government to allow parents to choose the sex of their baby? The second dilemma Is whether it is right for parents to be to select the sex of their babies. This is the question this paper is going to answer. It will do this on the background of the nurses’ code of ethics and theories and principles of ethics. It will also focus on what other authors are saying about the topic, and my own opinion as a conclusion.               One way to view the dilemma is the deontological theory. Waller (2005) defines deontology as duty- based ethics. This means that whether an action is right or wrong is judged by how well it followed the rules set. Deontology also focuses on the intention of doing something. That is an action is deemed wrong if the motives behind the action are negative, and right if the motives are positive.                As the Australian government has banned non- medical sex selection, anyone who will, in spite of the rules set, go for sex selection is deemed to be doing the wrong thing. His/ her actions are against the rules. On the other hand if the ban is lifted, judgement of whether their actions are wrong will depend on the motives for selecting the sex of the baby. A parent who chose the gender of the baby because of the fact that they had several children of one sex, will be deemed to be on the right, as compared to the one who chose the sex because they thought the other sex was too much of a hassle to raise.               Utilitarianism, which is under the school of consequentialism states that the rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by the consequences (Singer, 1979). This means that any action that has positive results will be deemed right, regardless of the motivation behind it. For example, stealing in order to spare a family from starvation is ethical. Utilitarianism says that how moral an action is deemed is determined by how valuable it is in providing happiness and pleasure for the greatest number of people.               The utilitarian school of thought was proposed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. It advances ‘the greatest good for the greatest majority’. Therefore if majority of the people are benefitting from an action, even if it does not seem right, then it is a right action. In accordance with the utilitarian theory of the greatest majority rule, sex selection is considered unethical since majority of Australians oppose the idea. It is on this basis that the theory strongly suggests that the ban on sex selection should be retained.               The feminist/virtue ethics theories state that virtues are in- born, and therefore these virtues are the ones that determine whether an action is right or wrong. For example since women are generally considered caring, not being caring to one’s own children is wrong. Virtue ethics argues that what makes an action right is if that is what someone who is considered virtuous would do (Carter, 2002). Tong (1997) is of the mind that feminism concentrates more on being good, rather than doing good. In a book written a decade later (2009), she goes on to say that caring is a virtue that has been considered a human strength and should be expected of and taught, not only to men but also to women.               According to feminism then, whether or not sex- selection is banned is not the point. The question is whether the parents will take good care of the child when it is born. The child’s gender can either be selected or not. If not well taken care of, then the act is considered wrong. However, if the child receives the due care and attention suitable for a child of that age, then the parent’s action of sex selection is ethical.               Christian ethics are based on the belief in God. What God says to man through the Bible is his way of speaking to us. Therefore, we should act according to his design and purpose for our lives. The Bible states that children are a gift from God (Revised Standard Version, 1972). Choosing the sex of one’s child then is like telling someone who has given you a gift that you are not interested in what they are about to give you, then going ahead and choosing your own gift in the process. In a way, Christian ethics are not very different from deontology as they both propose adherence to rules, which in the case of Christian ethics are based biblical principles.               To apply Christian ethics in Australia will entail banning sex selection. This will be done as sex selection is against the divine will of God. If God wanted to give a particular couple a son, he would have given them one. Instead, he gave them daughters. Why then should they throw his gift back in his face and tell him they are no longer interested in having girls, and as they do not think he will grant them their hearts’ desire, they will do what they desire?               In 2001 in the 5th edition of their book, Beauchamp and Childress proposed ethical principles to be followed in the nursing profession. These included autonomy. This refers to the nurses’ duty to let people make their own decisions as long as they are of a sound mind. Autonomy is a right patients have, even if it conflicts with a nurse’s opinion. In this context, beneficence can be defined as a duty to help others. In addition, they talked about non- maleficence which states that as nurse, we should do no harm to our patients. The last principle was justice. Justice entails being fair, and giving people what they deserve.               According to these principles, parents have a right to make their own decisions. As nurses, we should always be in a position to help them, giving them the best care possible, as long as they can afford it. In this case, if a couple wants to select the sex of their child, then we should do the best we possibly can to help them, even if we do not agree with their decision.               The nurses’ code of ethics (2005) affirms the principles by stating that nurses are under the obligation to uphold an environment where the patient’s rights of freedom, values, customs and human beliefs are respected. However, a nurse is to provide all necessary information that pertains to the decision the patient is about to make. This way, even if the patient still wants to go ahead with the decision to select the sex of the baby, at least she will do it having known the risk that such an action will pose to herself and to the baby.               Much has been written on the raging debate on sex selection. Savulescu (1999) fights for the right of parents to select the sex of their children. According to him, parents have ‘procreative autonomy’. This means that they have the right to make their own choices about what gender they want their child to have. To stress his point, Savulescu argues that parents are the only ones who know their own circumstances, and allowing them to choose the sex of the child will be doing the child a favor.     He disagrees with the proponents who are against the lifting of this ban by saying that all the reasons are not substantiated. First, methods used to select the sex of the child, such as IVF, PGD and cryopreservation do not have any known harmful effects other than the normal risks beyond human control. Health professionals should inform the parents of the risk, and let them make the decision. He goes on to say that the idea that sex selection will promote eugenics is unfounded. Savulescu observes that by using contraceptives, abortion and abstinence, people are already on their way there. Therefore, to him there is no apparent reason why people should oppose the ban; since by so doing the proponents are being hypocritical.     King (2007) concurs with Savulescu by stating that even when the effects of the procedures have been found to be negative, parents should be informed of the risks and allowed to make their own choices. She continues by disapproving another commonly held argument that by sex selection parents are playing God, by saying that since sex selection is allowed for medical reasons, for example in cases of inherited diseases, parents are the ultimate decision makers on matters of reproduction.     Bailey (2001) raises the notion that it is sometimes ethical to select the sex of the child. This is usually done in cases where the child might have severe physical disability or has the risk of contracting an illness that might be chronic. He goes on to say that despite this, sex selection has been in existence for a long time where people use other ways to determine the sex. This can be seen when couples trying to have a baby have been advised on different sex positions that will be helpful in getting a child of a particular gender. Other ways have included doing an ultrasound and aborting the fetus if found to be of the wrong sex. This has been a practice widely documented in India and China and has been seen to promote sexism. Between 1982 and 1987, of the 8,000 abortuses, 7,997 have been female (Dahl, 2003). This means that more boys are being allowed to live than girls. Bailey says that instead of having abortions, parents to be should be given safer options to select the sex of their baby.     McDougall (2005) is against sex selection for reasons that are very different from the ones presented. She argues her point by saying that sex selection goes against parental virtue that states that parents should accept their children regardless of their sex or characteristics.  Acceptance is what makes good parents. This means the way they are prepared to accept a child whose sex they selected who does not have the qualities they wanted, is the same way they should be in a position to accept the child regardless of the sex.     I disagree with Savulescu on the point that abstinence, abortion and contraceptives are in fact a form of eugenics. On the same point, I do agree with the various authors who say that non- medical sex selection is playing God and is a shortcut to eugenics. I do not doubt that some time in the future, scientists will find a way of designing babies. This is not something I approve of as it goes against the natural order of things. Selecting the sex of the baby one wants is denying other unborn ones the chance to live. Abortion is in reality, murder because of the fact that once a fetus is conceived, it is already alive, though not fully developed. Due to the fact that the effects of the sex selection procedures are not fully known, and that it goes against parental virtue, I disapprove of non- medical sex selection. This means that had I been on the National Health and Medical Research Council, I would have continued the ban. Nevertheless, morality is an issue of conscience without which life will have no meaning. Choosing the child’s sex, the parents who claim autonomy have already compromised their child’s autonomy.                     References Beauchamp, T. & Childress, J. (2001) Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 5th Ed, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bentham, Jeremy. (1789)An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation                     www.utilitarianism.com/jeremy-bentham/index.html. Carter, Lucy (2002) Four basic principles of bio- medical ethics. http://www.uq.edu.au/oppe Dahl, E. (2003) Procreative liberty: the case for preconception sex selection. Reprod BioMed Online. International Council of Nurses (2006) The ICN code of ethics for nurses. Geneva. www.icn.ch/about-icn/code-of-ethics-for-nurses King, Louise (2007) Sex selection for non- medical reasons. Virtual Mentor. June 2007, Vol. 9. No. 6. www.virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2007/06/ccas3-0706.html Lindy Kerin (ND) Boy or girl: should parents be allowed to choose? McDougall, R. (2005) Acting parentally: an argument against sex selection. Journal of Medical Ethics 2005. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › Journal List › J Med Ethics › v.31(10); Oct 2005 Savulescu, Julian (1999) Sex selection: the case for. Medical Journal of Australia. www.mja.com.au/public/issues/.../savulescu/savulescu.htm. The Bible: Revised standard version (1972). Glasgow: Harper Collins Publications. Tong, R. (1997) Feminist Approaches to Bioethics: Theoretical Reflections and Practical Applications. Colorado: Westview Press. Tong, R. (2009) Feminist Thought: A More Comprehensive Introduction. Charlotte: Westview Press.  Waller, Bruce N. 2005. Consider Ethics: Theory, Readings, and Contemporary Issues. New York: Cambridge University Press.                   Read More

              The feminist/virtue ethics theories state that virtues are in- born, and therefore these virtues are the ones that determine whether an action is right or wrong. For example since women are generally considered caring, not being caring to one’s own children is wrong. Virtue ethics argues that what makes an action right is if that is what someone who is considered virtuous would do (Carter, 2002). Tong (1997) is of the mind that feminism concentrates more on being good, rather than doing good.

In a book written a decade later (2009), she goes on to say that caring is a virtue that has been considered a human strength and should be expected of and taught, not only to men but also to women.               According to feminism then, whether or not sex- selection is banned is not the point. The question is whether the parents will take good care of the child when it is born. The child’s gender can either be selected or not. If not well taken care of, then the act is considered wrong.

However, if the child receives the due care and attention suitable for a child of that age, then the parent’s action of sex selection is ethical.               Christian ethics are based on the belief in God. What God says to man through the Bible is his way of speaking to us. Therefore, we should act according to his design and purpose for our lives. The Bible states that children are a gift from God (Revised Standard Version, 1972). Choosing the sex of one’s child then is like telling someone who has given you a gift that you are not interested in what they are about to give you, then going ahead and choosing your own gift in the process.

In a way, Christian ethics are not very different from deontology as they both propose adherence to rules, which in the case of Christian ethics are based biblical principles.               To apply Christian ethics in Australia will entail banning sex selection. This will be done as sex selection is against the divine will of God. If God wanted to give a particular couple a son, he would have given them one. Instead, he gave them daughters. Why then should they throw his gift back in his face and tell him they are no longer interested in having girls, and as they do not think he will grant them their hearts’ desire, they will do what they desire?

              In 2001 in the 5th edition of their book, Beauchamp and Childress proposed ethical principles to be followed in the nursing profession. These included autonomy. This refers to the nurses’ duty to let people make their own decisions as long as they are of a sound mind. Autonomy is a right patients have, even if it conflicts with a nurse’s opinion. In this context, beneficence can be defined as a duty to help others. In addition, they talked about non- maleficence which states that as nurse, we should do no harm to our patients.

The last principle was justice. Justice entails being fair, and giving people what they deserve.               According to these principles, parents have a right to make their own decisions. As nurses, we should always be in a position to help them, giving them the best care possible, as long as they can afford it. In this case, if a couple wants to select the sex of their child, then we should do the best we possibly can to help them, even if we do not agree with their decision.

              The nurses’ code of ethics (2005) affirms the principles by stating that nurses are under the obligation to uphold an environment where the patient’s rights of freedom, values, customs and human beliefs are respected. However, a nurse is to provide all necessary information that pertains to the decision the patient is about to make. This way, even if the patient still wants to go ahead with the decision to select the sex of the baby, at least she will do it having known the risk that such an action will pose to herself and to the baby.

Read More