全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用:99美元

查看量下载量

相关文章

更多...

The Australian Community Does Not Support Gender Selection by IVF for Social Reasons

DOI: 10.1155/2013/242174

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

This study was carried out to determine the attitudes of the Australian community to IVF by a reliable community poll. Cross-sectional surveys, conducted by telephone of a random sample of 650 Australians were undertaken. The sample was drawn from the residential phone numbers in the Australian electronic “White Pages” and stratified by geographical area with quotas controlled by gender and age to be representative of the Australian population. The participants were asked to answer to three questions about gender selection, and their response was measured as “yes-allowed,” “no-not allowed,” or “undecided” for each of the questions. Whilst 91% of respondents supported the use of IVF to help infertile couples, only 20% supported gender selection within IVF or for family balancing. When it came to the use of IVF only for gender selection, only 17% were in favour. This survey shows that Australian community overwhelmingly opposes gender selection for social reasons. 1. Introduction With the development of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) using IVF technology, it is now technically possible to determine the gender of the embryo before being transfered with a high degree of certainty [1]. There has been much discussion in the media whether the technique should be allowed. In the State of Victoria gender selection is only permitted by legislation for “medical indications” [2], and throughout Australia it is against the guidelines of the National Health and Medical Research Council [3], thus preventing Australian couples from using this technology. Whilst the technique is forbidden in India and the European Community, it is permitted in several countries. The ethics of clinicians referring couples for gender selection from countries where it is forbidden to other countries where it is permitted and is performed has recently been the subject of debate [4]. Opinion of Ethics Committees can reflect the attitudes of its membership, or they can be swayed by vocal minorities. We carried out a survey by an experienced and reliable “Gallup Poll” organization to assess the attitude of the general Australian community on social gender selection. 2. Methods As part of the regular Morgan Gallup polls three questions with respect to IVF and gender selection were included with the Morgan Gallup Telephone Poll of the week of February 1st, 2011. Morgan Gallup Polls are carried out each fortnight as cross-sectional surveys, conducted by telephone of a random sample of 650 Australians. This survey was conducted as part of a larger omnibus community survey performed by Roy

References

[1]  D. K. Griffin, L. J. Wilton, A. H. Handyside, G. H. G. Atkinson, R. M. L. Winston, and J. D. A. Delhanty, “Diagnosis of sex in preimplantation embryos by fluorescent in situ hybridisation,” British Medical Journal, vol. 306, no. 6889, p. 1382, 1993.
[2]  Assisted Reproduction Treatment Act (Victoria), 1988, http://www.health.vic.gov.au/art/.
[3]  National Health Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Ethical guidelines on the use of assisted reproductive technology in clinical practice and research 2004 (as revised in 2007 to take into account the changes in legislation), Section 11, June 2007; Sex selection.
[4]  J. Macfarlane, “Select your baby's sex for £14,000: how British couples are being sent to Cyprus for illegal fertility treatments,” Mail on Sunday 13th February 2011, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1356403/NHS-fertility-doctor-Charles-Kingsland-sends-UK-couples-Cyprus-illegal-treatment.html#ixzz1EOJmJEuB.
[5]  R. Kippen, A. Evans, and E. Gray, “Australian attitudes toward sex-selection technology,” Fertility and Sterility, vol. 95, no. 5, pp. 1824–1826, 2011.

Full-Text

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133