Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T00:05:23.199Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reproductive Information and Reproductive Decision-Making

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Maxwell J. Mehlman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The abortion controversy has dominated the conversation about the relationship between reproductive information and reproductive decision-making, as Rachel Rebouché aptly demonstrates in her article in this collection entitled “Non-Invasive Testing, Non-Invasive Counseling.” Professor Rebouché focuses on the newest reproductive information technology, non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT). She describes legislative efforts to restrict both the information that can be obtained from NIPT and the actions that can be taken as a result of that information: Tennessee’s prohibition of government-sponsored NIPT for incurable conditions; Arizona’s and Oklahoma’s extension of immunity to physicians who decline to disclose fetal anomalies; Virginia and Nebraska permitting genetic counselors to omit discussing abortion as an option; North Dakota’s ban on abortions for fetal anomalies detected through prenatal testing; requirements that physicians record their patients’ reasons for seeking abortions; prohibitions in nine states on abortions based on the gender of the fetus; as well as a federal bill, the Prenatal Non-Discrimination Act (PRENDA), that would make it illegal to abort a fetus on account of its sex or race.

Type
Symposium
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 43 , Issue 2 , Summer 2015 , pp. 241 - 244
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

See Rebouché, R., “Non-Invasive Testing, Non-Invasive Counseling,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 43, no. 2 (2015): 228–240.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See Asch, A., “Disability Equality and Prenatal Testing: Contradictory or Compatible?” Florida State University Law Review 30, no. 2 (2003): 315–342, at 339.Google Scholar
Americans United for Life, “Ban on Abortions Performed for Reasons of Sex Selection, Potential Genetic Deformity, or Potential Disability” available at <http://www.aul.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/model-ban-abortions-sex-selection.pdf> (last visited April 30, 2015).+(last+visited+April+30,+2015).>Google Scholar
Id., at 249–50 (cited in Rebouché, supra note 1). Ironically, an article in Slate reports that U.S.-based parents making gender choices in conjunction with in vitro fertilization (IVF) and preimplantation genetic testing (PGD) overwhelming prefer females over males. Sidhu, J., “How to Buy a Daughter: Choosing the Sex of Your Baby Has Become a Multimillion-Dollar Industry,” Slate, Sept, 14, 2012, available at <http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2012/09/sex_selection_in_babies_through_pgd_americans_are_paying_to_have_daughters_rather_than_sons_.html> (last visited April 21, 2015) (“Data from Google show that ‘how to have a girl’ is searched three times as often in the United States as ‘how to have a boy.’ Many fertility doctors say that girls are the goal for 80 percent of gender selection patients. A study published in 2009 by the online journal Reproductive Biomedicine Online found Caucasian-Americans preferentially select females through PGD 70 percent of the time.”).+(last+visited+April+21,+2015)+(“Data+from+Google+show+that+‘how+to+have+a+girl’+is+searched+three+times+as+often+in+the+United+States+as+‘how+to+have+a+boy.’+Many+fertility+doctors+say+that+girls+are+the+goal+for+80+percent+of+gender+selection+patients.+A+study+published+in+2009+by+the+online+journal+Reproductive+Biomedicine+Online+found+Caucasian-Americans+preferentially+select+females+through+PGD+70+percent+of+the+time.”).>Google Scholar
See, e.g., President's Council on Bioethics, Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Human Improvement (2003).Google Scholar
A genetic test is available that identifies one variant of the ACTN3 gene in humans, called R577X, which codes for a protein called -actinin-3 (http://www.atlasgene.com/) (last visited April 21, 2015). Individuals with this genetic variation tend to have an abundance of slow-twitch muscles, which are associated with activities such as long-distance running that require endurance, while individuals who do not have this variant of the ACTN3 gene have more fast-twitch muscles, which are associated with activities requiring shorter bursts of energy such as sprinting and weightlifting. 23andMe, an online, direct-to-consumer genetic testing company, offered tests for non-disease characteristics such as intelligence and longevity, but the validity of the tests was not established and the FDA ordered the company to cease sales. FDA Warning Letter to 23andMe, November 22, 2013, available at <http://www.fda.gov/iceci/enforcementactions/warningletters/2013/ucm376296.htm> (last visited April 21, 2015).+(last+visited+April+21,+2015).>Google Scholar
“No person shall knowingly … (e) for the purpose of creating a human being, perform any procedure or provide, prescribe or administer anything that would ensure or increase the probability that an embryo will be of a particular sex, or that would identify the sex of an in vitro embryo, except to prevent, diagnose or treat a sex-linked disorder or disease.” S.C. 2004, c. 2, § (5)(1)(e)(2012) (cited in Rebouché draft).Google Scholar
See Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, under Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act of 2008, available at <www.hfea.gov.uk> (last visited April 21, 2015).+(last+visited+April+21,+2015).>Google Scholar
One company purports to use DNA testing to select dates based on the smell associated with their immune systems. See Singer, N., “Better Loving through Chemistry,” New York Times, February 6, 2010, available at <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/business/07stream.html?_r=09accessed> (last visited April 21, 2015).+(last+visited+April+21,+2015).>Google Scholar
See Mehlman, M. J., Transhumanist Dreams and Dystopian Nightmares: Genetic Engineering and the Future of Human Evolution (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2012): At 155–208.Google Scholar
State courts have upheld laws that criminalize drug use during pregnancy, but the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down blanket drug testing of obstetric patients. See Fox, D., “Interest Creep,” George Washington Law Review 82, no. 2 (2014): 273–357, at 322 (discussing the government's interest in protecting children from pre-birth or pre-conception harm). See also Cohen, I. G., “Beyond Best Interests,” Minnesota Law Review 96, no. 4 (2012): 1187–1274. As Cohen and others have pointed out, Parfitt's Non-Identity Problem makes it difficult to justify government regulation of reproductive decisions that would prevent the birth of specific children.Google Scholar
See note supra 10.Google Scholar
Miller, D. Summers, J. Silber, S., “Environmental Versus Genetic Sex Determination: A Possible Factor in Dinosaur Extinction?” Fertility and Sterility 81, no. 4 (2004): 954–964, at 962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Rebouché, , supra note 1.Google Scholar
Connor, S., “Medical Ethicist: Ban on Sex Selection of IVF Embryos Not Justified,” Independent, July 3, 2013, available at <http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/medical-ethicist-ban-on-sex-selection-of-ivf-embryos-is-not-justified-8683940.html> (last visited April 21, 2015).+(last+visited+April+21,+2015).>Google Scholar