KIEREN JACKSON, research officer at the Australian Christian Lobby, argues against a proposal to allow Australians to select the gender of their babies…
The Australian Christian Lobby has raised concerns over a proposal for Australians to be able to pick the sex of their baby under proposed IVF law changes.
In addition, there is a troubling proposal to allow for the commercial trading of human eggs.
PICTURE: www.freeimages.com
“It has been reported that the proposed changes, which have not been made public, may open the way for couples to select the gender of their third child as well as commercialise egg donations.”
The Australian Health Ethics Committee is considering these drastic changes.
The revelation comes from a working group of the National Health and Medical Research Council which has put forward the recommendations for the ethics committee to consider as part of a broader review of assisted reproductive technology ethical guidelines.
It has been reported that the proposed changes, which have not been made public, may open the way for couples to select the gender of their third child as well as commercialise egg donations.
IVF clinics stand to profit handsomely from opening up a new market of parents who have had children of the same sex but want to ensure their next child is of the opposite sex.
The terms of reference to the review, which began in 2015, framed the issue as one of “family balancing”, a term used to describe subjective parental preferences that could have different meanings depending on the family, the number and sex of the existing children.
The practice of sex selection is not new. Some cultures practice sex-selective abortion. For example, until recently, China has had a “one-child policy” which, in a state lacking welfare for the elderly, has resulted in a greater number of males being born. The policy has now been changed to two children, but the demographic affect is irreversible. There is also widespread use of pre-natal testing and abortion to prevent the birth of girls in India.
It appears that the proposed changes would be different because they would only be available for the third or fourth child onward, this condition seems arbitrary and ethical concerns about the approach have been voiced.
The Australian Christian Lobby has raised concerns over the proposal. ACL spokesperson Wendy Francis said opening up discrimination on the basis of sex sent the wrong message about the inherent value of humans.
“It makes no difference if it is for a first child or third child, most Australians would agree that discrimination based on sex is always wrong,” she said.
“The autonomy of the parent to choose the sex of their child should never trump the need for the child to be loved unconditionally. What approach to parenting will we adopt if we start eliminating human life in its early stages for being the wrong sex? It sends all the wrong messages to children about unconditional love,” said Ms Francis.
Advocates for the practice argue that Australian’s are already engaging in sex-selective abortion in overseas jurisdictions where IVF industries have little safeguards. They argue that Australia should engage in a practice to prevent Australian parents from traveling overseas into dangerous areas of the industry.
Emotional stories of parents wanting to fulfil their dreams of having a child of the sex they want, seem to have impact on the conversation, but other important considerations seem absent.
Two out of the three methods of sex selective IVF involve discarding an existing embryo, which involves either pre-implantation screening of embryos or abortion after implantation. The sorting of sperm before implantation is another method that is used, but does not have a 100 per cent success rate.
This step would also be a new one for the IVF industry in Australia since child sex selection based on parental preference is dramatic departure from the reasons of infertility and the destruction of embryos for genetic reasons that constitutes current IVF practice.
In relation to this departure, a submission by the Australian Christian Lobby to the National Health and Medical Research Council’s review of the draft ethical guidelines states: “gender is not a disease”.
Among other issues that are under consideration are the provision of payment for eggs, a move designed to address the shortage of eggs available to women in Australia who currently rely on altruism.
We should consider that if we commercialise the purchase of gametes it would result in the ingredients of human life being traded like commodities. How we treat the ingredients and processes where human life begins is important, a collective deep breath is needed.
We should consider that if we commercialise the purchase of gametes it would result in the ingredients of human life being traded like commodities. How we treat the ingredients and processes where human life begins is important, a collective deep breath is needed.
This move also threatens to play into wider debates in the community on another issue, namely commercial surrogacy and same-sex marriage.
Commercialising egg donations, which is currently against the regulations, gives a boost to those calling for commercial surrogacy and helps the clinics get one step closer to their goal. Such calls not only come from the IVF industry that stands to profit, but from those who are unable to have children due to their relationship structure. With a plebiscite on redefining marriage on the horizon, the potential for same-sex marriage to become law is a choice for the Australian people. The only practical way to provide children to the many same-sex male couples who will want them as part of their same-sex marriages would be to remove the ban on commercial surrogacy.
Cash for eggs is one part of wider changes to parenting and family structures where children risk missing out on forming important relationships with those who are the source of their biological origins. This is not only the case for same-sex parenting, but also for heterosexual couples who are unable to conceive and so choose surrogacy.
We must ask ourselves what kind of impact wider surrogacy might have on a child’s identity, and if the desire to have a child, no matter the cost, is really more important than the needs of the child involved.
Kieren Jackson is a research officer at the Australian Christian Lobby.
