Kid-mappers at the nursery door
Back in November (Daily Dose, 11/21), I wrote to you about
the disturbing, yet inevitable, specter of human genetic
engineering - specifically, the disastrous impact that sex
selection of babies would have on our species. To recap, my
November article sounded the alarm about the overwhelming
probability that sex selection, were it a reality, would
quickly and irrevocably skew the male-female ratio of the
human race - especially in those cultures (and there are
many, especially in Asia) in which male children are more
highly regarded than females. And guess what…
Sex selection IS ALREADY a reality.
According to a recent CBS News report, a California
fertility clinic has been offering sex selection as a for-
purchase procedure for nearly 2 years, boasting a 99.9% rate
of accuracy. How's it done? By reading the human
genetic "map" to screen pre-fertilized embryos for sex
BEFORE implanting one or more of them into the womb to be
carried to term. The technology that makes such early sex
determination possible is a fringe benefit of a procedure
designed a decade ago to identify embryos that carried
serious or fatal genetic diseases like sickle cell anemia or
cystic fibrosis - a noble goal, by anyone's measure.
Yet once again, we're seeing important life-enhancing
technology being twisted to serve the most shallow of ends.
This kind of needless choice does nothing but CREATE a
desire for one kind of child over another - instead of just
a healthy, bouncing baby of any sex. It's like plastic
surgery: Before we COULD modify our breasts and chins and
hairlines and whatever, did anyone really want to?
To those who scoff at the notion that more people would
prefer a baby of one sex over another, consider this: When
the clinic first started offering sex selection, ONLY
patients who could have children no other way than through
in-vitro fertilization (IVF) opted to choose the sex of
their child. Now that word has gotten out that this is
possible, 70% of the couples seeking IVF at the clinic are
doing so just to make sure they'll have a child of the sex
they prefer - not because of any medical necessity. And
since most other countries have banned sex selection of
embryos (it's perfectly legal here in the U.S.), the
California clinic has gotten a huge amount of international
business since going public with the procedure.
So far, the only thing that's stopped this "kid-mapping"
from spreading across the country like wildfire is its cost -
nearly $20,000 per embryo. But there's a new development
that purports to make it attainable for any couple,
anywhere. Keep reading…
***********************************************
Sex selection via e-Male?
A "do-it-yourself kit" for sex selection was inevitable,
wasn't it?
Of course it was. And according to the makers of GenSelect
one such Internet-marketed sex selection kit (yes, there are
more than one), couples can choose the sex of their child
with a 96% accuracy rate - provided they follow the
instructions. And they can do it for the low, low price of
just $199!
Naturally, the 3-year-old company won't release information
about their products' success rates, citing confidentiality.
And they concede the fact that not all customers end up with
the girl or boy they hoped for. But they insist that in
virtually every case of unexpected results, their kit's
instructions weren't followed to the letter. Sound fishy?
It does to me, too. Many doctors (like this one) remain
skeptical of these kits - including one of the pioneers of
the near-foolproof IVF pre-implantation method I described
in the previous piece. According to one TV news source, he
called the GenSelect system "snake oil."
Yet that doesn't stop hopeful (but no less meddlesome)
parents-to-be from ordering these kits en masse in hopes of
guaranteeing that they'll have the little Joey or Joanne
they've always wanted. In fact, the makers of GenSelect
claim sales have tripled in just the last year alone! Which
just goes to show you that there really is a sucker born
every minute…
Whether or not that sucker is a boy or a girl, however,
seems to still be largely in the hands of nature (or a
select few ultra-expensive clinics) - for now, at least.
Never selecting the unnatural,
William Campbell Douglass II, MD
