European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
Volume 148, Issue 2 , Pages 158-162 , February 2010

Opinions concerning pre-implantation genetic diagnosis and sex selection among gynecologist-obstetricians in Brazil

  • George H. Caldas

      Affiliations

    • Medicine Center of Sergipe – Fertility Clinic, CEMISE-CLIFERT, Aracaju, SE, Brazil
    • University of Pernambuco – UPE, Recife, PE, Brazil
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author at: Medicine Center of Sergipe – Fertility Clinic, CEMISE-CLIFERT, Rua Construtor João Alves, n° 228, São José, Aracaju 49025-340, SE, Brazil. Tel.: +55 79 3234 1000; fax: +55 79 3234 1000.
    • ,
  • Erika Caldas

      Affiliations

    • Medicine Center of Sergipe – Fertility Clinic, CEMISE-CLIFERT, Aracaju, SE, Brazil
    • Federal University of Sergipe/RENORBIO – UFS, Aracaju, SE, Brazil
    • ,
  • Edilson D. Araújo

      Affiliations

    • Federal University of Sergipe/RENORBIO – UFS, Aracaju, SE, Brazil
    • ,
  • Tatiana C.S. Bonetti

      Affiliations

    • Medicine Center of Sergipe – Fertility Clinic, CEMISE-CLIFERT, Aracaju, SE, Brazil
    • Federal University of São Paulo – UNIFESP, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
    • ,
  • Cláudio B. Leal

      Affiliations

    • University of Pernambuco – UPE, Recife, PE, Brazil
    • ,
  • Aurélio M. Costa

      Affiliations

    • University of Pernambuco – UPE, Recife, PE, Brazil

Received 12 May 2009 ,Revised 22 September 2009 ,Accepted 19 October 2009.

References 

  1. Hudson KL. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: public policy and public attitudes. Fertil Steril. 2006;85(6):1638–1645
  2. American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) . Preimplantation genetic testing: a Practice Committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2008;90(5 Suppl):S136–S143
  3. PGDIS . Guidelines for good practice in PGD: programme requirements and laboratory quality assurance. Reprod Biomed. 2008;16(1):134–147[Online]
  4. Vidal F, Fugger EF, Blanco J, et al. Efficiency of MicroSort flow cytometry for producing sperm populations enriched in X- or Y-chromosome haplotypes: a blind trial assessed by double and triple colour fluorescent in situ hybridization. Hum Reprod. 1998;13(2):308–312
  5. American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) . Preconception gender selection for nonmedical reasons. Fertil Steril. 2004;82(Suppl 1):S232–S235
  6. Thornhill AR, deDie-Smulders CE, Geraedts JP, et al. ESHRE PGD Consortium ‘Best practice guidelines for clinical preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and preimplantation genetic screening (PGS)’. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(1):35–48
  7. PGDIS . The Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis International Society (PGDIS): guidelines for good practice in PGD. Reprod Biomed. 2004;9(4):430–434[Online]
  8. Kalfoglou AL, Scott J, Hudson K. Attitudes about preconception sex selection: a focus group study with Americans. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(12):2731–2736
  9. CFM .  Medicina CFd editors. Normas técnicas para utilização das técnicas de reprodução assistida. Brazil: Conselho Federal de Medicina; 1992;
  10. Himmel W, Dahl E, Michelmann H. Preconception sex selection: a survey of visitors to an internet-based health forum. Reprod Biomed. 2008;16(Suppl 1):18–26[Online]
  11. Dahl E, Gupta RS, Beutel M, et al. Preconception sex selection demand and preferences in the United States. Fertil Steril. 2006;85(2):468–473
  12. Baruch S, Kaufman D, Hudson KL. Genetic testing of embryos: practices and perspectives of US in vitro fertilization clinics. Fertil Steril. 2008;89(5):1053–1058
  13. Dahl E, Beutel M, Brosig B, et al. Social sex selection and the balance of the sexes: empirical evidence from Germany, the UK, and the US. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2006;23(7–8):311–318
  14. Jain T, Missmer SA, Gupta RS, Hornstein MD. Preimplantation sex selection demand and preferences in an infertility population. Fertil Steril. 2005;83(3):649–658
  15. Meister U, Finck C, Stobel-Richter Y, Schmutzer G, Brahler E, et al. Knowledge and attitudes towards preimplantation genetic diagnosis in Germany. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(1):231–238
  16. Missmer SA, Jain T. Preimplantation sex selection demand and preferences among infertility patients in Midwestern United States. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2007;24(10):451–457
  17. Drazen JM. Inserting government between patient and physician. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(2):178–179
  18. Frankel MS, Morris P. A view from the field on food and drug administration regulation: report of a 2002 survey of U.S. fertility clinics. Fertil Steril. 2003;79(5):1060–1062
  19. Yogev Y, Simon Y, Ben-Haroush A, et al. Attitudes of Israeli gynecologists regarding candidate screening and personal responsibility in assisted reproductive technologies versus adoption in Israel. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2003;110(1):55–57
  20. de la Fuente Fonnest I, Sondergaard F, Fonnest G, Vedsted-Jacobsen A. Attitudes among health care professionals on the ethics of assisted reproductive technologies and legal abortion. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2000;79(1):49–53
  21. Baruch S, Kaufman DJ, Hudson KL. Preimplantation genetic screening: a survey of in vitro fertilization clinics. Genet Med. 2008;10(9):685–690
  22. Ehrich K, Williams C, Farsides B. The embryo as moral work object: PGD/IVF staff views and experiences. Sociol Health Illn. 2008;30(5):772–787
  23. Williams C, Ehrich K, Farsides B, Scott R. Facilitating choice, framing choice: staff views on widening the scope of preimplantation genetic diagnosis in the UK. Soc Sci Med. 2007;65(6):1094–1105
  24. Ehrich K, Williams C, Scott R, Sandall J, Farsides B. Social welfare, genetic welfare? Boundary-work in the IVF/PGD clinic. Soc Sci Med. 2006;63(5):1213–1224
  25. Stern JE, Cramer CP, Green RM, Garrod A, DeVries KO. Determining access to assisted reproductive technology: reactions of clinic directors to ethically complex case scenarios. Hum Reprod. 2003;18(6):1343–1352
  26. Kalfoglou AL, Doksum T, Bernhardt B, et al. Opinions about new reproductive genetic technologies: hopes and fears for our genetic future. Fertil Steril. 2005;83(6):1612–1621
  27. Robertson JA. Extending preimplantation genetic diagnosis: the ethical debate. Ethical issues in new uses of preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Hum Reprod. 2003;18(3):465–471
  28. Klitzman R, Appelbaum PS, Chung W, Sauer M, et al. Anticipating issues related to increasing preimplantation genetic diagnosis use: a research agenda. Reprod Biomed. 2008;17(Suppl 1):33–42[Online]
  29. Klitzman R, Zolovska B, Folberth W, et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis on in vitro fertilization clinic websites: presentations of risks, benefits and other information. Fertil Steril. 2009;92(4):1276–1283
  30. Zegers-Hochschild F. Attitudes towards reproduction in Latin America. Teachings from the use of modern reproductive technologies. Hum Reprod Update. 1999;5(1):21–25
  31. Soini S, Ibarreta D, Anastasiadou V, et al. The interface between assisted reproductive technologies and genetics: technical, social, ethical and legal issues. Eur J Hum Genet. 2006;14(5):588–645

PII: S0301-2115(09)00639-3

doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.10.023

European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
Volume 148, Issue 2 , Pages 158-162 , February 2010

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution