A government Bioethics Council’s recommendation that New Zealand relax its ban on allowing parents to select the gender of their children through prenatal testing has drawn sharp opposition from the country’s Protestant Churches.In June, the state Bioethics Council released a report stating that when embryos are created outside the womb, parents should be permitted to select the sex of the baby.
However, this practice poses major ethical dilemmas, the Interchurch Bioethics Council (ICBC) said, and should be forbidden.
New Zealand, along with Australia and UK, forbids sex selection of infants, save in cases of medical necessity. However, the US, India and China allow the procedures.
Sex selection through ultrasound and other medical procedures is now commonplace in India and China, and has led to a gender imbalance in the population.
While Indian law forbids disclosing the gender of a baby during ultrasound procedures, the law is widely flouted.
From 1981 to 2001 the ratio of live girls to boys fell from 962 to 927 per thousand.
Ratios vary across India, with the wealthier northern states showing the greatest gender imbalances.
In the Punjab 798, Haryana 819, Delhi 868 and Gujarat 883 girls are born per 1,000 boys, according to the 2001 census.
On April 28, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh called sex-selection India’s “national shame” and called for a government crackdown on doctors and clinics that flouted the law.
"No nation, no society, no community can hold its head high and claim to be part of the civilized world if it condones the practice of discriminating against one half of humanity represented by women,” he said."
The chairman of the New Zealand ICBC, Audrey Jarvis, rejected the state panel’s conclusion that there were no social, ethical, or spiritual reasons to ban sex-selection. "We do support pre-birth selection of embryos on medical grounds in the case of major illnesses,” but reject select selection for social reasons, as it perpetuates the stereotype that the value of a child depends on its gender, she said.
"Another concern we have is for the disabled community. They are concerned that this type of selection will devalue disabled people. It is important that all persons, disabled or not, are valued and seen as contributing to society. There should be full support for those who are disabled and their families and caregivers," Dr Jarvis said.
A joint venture of the Presbyterian, Methodist and Anglican Churches, the ICBC was created in 2002 as the Interchurch Commission on Genetic Engineering. In recent years the 10-member Council has widened its brief to provide opportunities for consultation and dialogue with church members on the ethical, theological, spiritual and cultural issues in the use of biotechnology.
Last week the synod of New Zealand’s Presbyterian Church endorsed the ICBC conclusions and urged the government not to relax its ban on sex-selection for social reasons.
During Parliament’s 2005 debate on sex-selection and human cloning, the Bishop of Southwark, the Rt Rev Tom Butler, said the Church of England “would oppose strongly any proposals that tend to erode proper priority for the welfare of the child or that embrace a view of children as consumer commodities.
Sex selection for social reasons would have serious consequences for society as well as for families.
"From a Christian perspective, the child is a gift from God and should always be regarded as an individual, not as an extension of parental consumer choice. Parents need to be left to receive and accept their children just as they are, not be led into believing they can select children as they would a customised personal accessory," said Dr Butler, vice-chairman of the Church of England's mission and public affairs council.
The British Medical Association also opposed sex-selection of infants for social reasons during the 2005 debate.
The chairman of the BMA's ethics committee, Dr Michael Wilks, said, it was “important that we retain a balance between the rights of people seeking treatment, the interests of the children born and the legitimate interests of society.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Disclaimer
No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to either myself or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.
The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that I agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.
Sotto Voce
(Source: RI)