Sex selection and the New York Times
Posted by Marcy Darnovsky February 11, 2007
Biopolitical Times
Sex selection is a hot topic. So when the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists states that it's unethical for doctors to participate in sex selection for "family balancing" or "personal preference" because doing so would support sexism, as it did in a February 1 statement, you'd expect a bit of media attention.
You wouldn't be wrong: The New York Times weighed in on February 6 with an article titled "Girl or Boy? As Fertility Technology Advances, So Does an Ethical Debate."
The eyebrow raiser is that the piece doesn't get around to mentioning ACOG's new statement until the eighth paragraph, and that all three of the sources it cites - two MDs who run fertility programs and a bioethicist known for his libertarian leanings - think sex selection is just fine.
"Family balancing" yes, media balance no?
You wouldn't be wrong: The New York Times weighed in on February 6 with an article titled "Girl or Boy? As Fertility Technology Advances, So Does an Ethical Debate."
The eyebrow raiser is that the piece doesn't get around to mentioning ACOG's new statement until the eighth paragraph, and that all three of the sources it cites - two MDs who run fertility programs and a bioethicist known for his libertarian leanings - think sex selection is just fine.
"Family balancing" yes, media balance no?