E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSBy MyHealthNewsDaily
Doctors should not tell pregnant women the sex of their baby until 30 weeks into a pregnancy, one physician is arguing, taking a stance that is sure to be controversial.
By not revealing a fetus' sex, doctors could prevent abortions related to the sex of the baby, according to Dr. Rajendra Kale, interim editor-in-chief of the Canadian Medical Association Journal. The practice of "sex selection," or the aborting of female fetuses because of a preference for sons, is an issue in several Asian countries, and may also be done by some immigrants in Canada and the United States, Kale said.
"A pregnant woman being told the sex of the fetus at ultrasonography at a time when an unquestioned abortion is possible is the starting point" of sex selection, Kale wrote in the editorial published online in the lastest issue of CMAJ.
Currently, most pregnant women in the United States get an ultrasound between 18 and 22 weeks of pregnancy to look for fetal anomalies.
Kale pointed to research in Canada and the United States indicating that immigrants in certain ethnic groups, including people from China, Korea and India, selectively abort female fetuses: couples who have two daughters are more likely to have a son as their third child than would be expected if left to chance.
Two large organizations of doctors — the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada, and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists — agree that sex selection is unethical.
Still, withholding information about the sex of a fetus from a woman is also not ethical, according to the ACOG. "Because a patient is entitled to obtain personal medical information, including information about the sex of her fetus, it will sometimes be impossible for health care professionals to avoid unwitting participation in sex selection," according to a 2007 ACOG committee report.
But Kale argued that although a woman has a right to information about herself as it relates to her health and medical care, the sex of the fetus is medically irrelevant information, and does not affect the care of the pregnant woman or her unborn child. The only exception should be in cases of rare, sex-linked illnesses, Kale said.
While the problem of sex selection in Canada and the United States is likely small, it should not be ignored, according to Kale, a native of Mumbai, India.
The organizations that govern physicians in Canada should adopt policies that limit disclosure of fetal sex by health professionals to after 30 weeks, Kale said.
Related story:
Undesired: In India, boys are prized over girls with violent results
Leave a Comment:
I am not the judge to any murderers of children but you will answer to God.
And Lynn - I can't tell you how glad I am that it is up to God and not you to judge me. God and I are doing just fine with my decisions about what happens with my body.
I agree Katheryn! I'm pretty sure that God would prefer I be able to support and raise a child a few years from now than a few years ago when I had no money, no job, and no hope.
If you believe that a woman has a right to end a pregnancy or not, you cannot withhold information to try and modify her behavior - that I believe is unethical.
And, as has been mentioned by other posters - what about birth defects or other issues? Should women be told about those since that might lead to an abortion?
But then again if society wants to force a woman to have a child, IMHO, society takes on some of the burden to help pay for that child if the woman cannot afford it or if the child has medical issues - you can't force someone to do something and then walk away from the resultant costs...
Any mom who will murder her child in the womb will also murder it once it has been born. I doubt withholding the gender of the unborn will make these types of low lives do any differently. They have no respect for their child or life, in general, so killing an infant is no big deal to them-whether it has been born or not.
Wow. Just.......wow.
This story was not about abortion or no abortion. This story was about whether a doctor should withhold information about a baby's sex -- whether the parents are low-lives or responsible parents. If you can tell through an ultrasound that a parent is irresponsible, you're in the wrong business and should be awarded the Nobel Prize.
minnie, you are talking absolute nonsense. Many women have had abortions and gone on to have wanted children when they knew they were ready to care for them. Come to think of it, if she had not had the abortion, then the wanted child would never have been born anyway.
Absolutely wrong minnie. Get a clue. Its because they respect the QUALITY of life that many women choose abortion.
This focus on abortion as the only issue facing America has gotten way out of hand. You'd think every other pregnant woman wants an abortion. Thousands and thousands of healthy babies are born to loving responsible parents every year -- of all persuasions: rich, poor, black. white, Hispanic, democrat and Republican. Those who claim to define themselves as "conservative" think abortion and women's health bashing are the ONLY issues facing this country.
It's pure distraction drummed up by people who can't come up with solutions to unemployment, the environment, out-of-control election spending, safe streets, international relations, war and personal freedom. Some conservatives want to limit contraception, religious diversiity and their unending efforts to snuff out the middle class.
It's possible that some -- very few -- middle-eastern and Asian countries support abortion as a way to guaranty giving birth to a specific gender. But I find the idea that this rampant ridiculous -- and certainly not a significant issue in the U.S.
For more than 200 years we have fought for and gained freedom for all. My father and thousands of others who served during World War II put their lives on the line to ensure we keep the freedoms we have and make them available to everyone.
Republicans, get your noses out of our freedoms and find some creative solutions to help us overcome our nation's ills.
I beg your pardon. You can't call yourself "pro choice" if you place any restrictions on the reasons one uses to make a "choice"
anyone out there dare question the moral superiority of the western tradition after reading countless stories such as this? the horror and evil perpetrated by traditional societies the world over should shame all those who criticize the "evil, pale, penis people". the most liberal, tolerant societies on earth are found in the white, western world, not the african bush or middle - eastern desert.
What do you mean "countless"? You make it sound like this is a problem among hundreds if not thousands of pregnancies. The central point of this story is that someone wants to create a blanket policy based on a tiny percentage of pregnancies.
by countless i mean stories that go beyond sex selective abortions. only today msn ran a story about the murder and torture of women in india whose parents cannot afford a suitable dowry. is this happening to sally mcdougle in dublin? no, in the traditional societies of india. how about the mutilation and/or removal of girls' genitalia. is this happening to the smith girl in duluth? sorry, my we are the world friend, it is happening to the young muslim girl in mombasa. again give me a shot of penicillin any time to the wise, "spiritual" chanting of a shaman.
Lol -
Abortion supporters completely at a loss? So, lemme get this straight. Its sex discrimination to tell a woman if it is a boy or a girl, and then the person decide on that basis. But how is it discrimination? They're not really human beings anyways. They're just fetuses. With two X chromosomes or one X, one Y chromosome. Nobody is being discriminated against. Cause there's nobody in the womb.
But yet....obviously now there is someone. And darn it. We can't have women decide they want a boy before a girl. How interesting that there is sexual discrimination, but not discrimination based on disabilities. Or social discrimination (poor babies as opposed to those born into affluence). Just sex. That's all.
So many discrepencies. So many idiots.
Abortion supporters don't care about the "discrimination". They care that a doctor gets to choose what he does and does not tell a woman in an effort to control her decisions (that she has every right to make whether he likes it or not). Have you not read through the comments?
Yeah, I did. Hey Terriels, you're ignoring the obvious. The question here is really rather simple. Should women be allowed to make the decision based on sex? Those supporters who are ACTUALLY honest with themselves will say yes. Yes they should. After all, if an abortion is based on something other than life/death, it's most likely discriminatory in some way.
Inevitably, we treat these fetuses as human anyways. This story would be the same if they started telling the mother what color their eyes would be. Or if they had a certain skin pigment. Hot button discrimination topics that are going to divide people.
But like I said, it's certainly no different than a mother basically deciding to have a child based on the some aspect of the child - say if the Doctor told her it was going to be blind. We don't legally allow employment decisions based on those reasons alone - why would there not be an argument in abortions?
For those who don't support abortions either way, its simple. All of its deplorable, so none of its acceptable. For those that support them, it just shows what a moral conundrum you're in. At the end of the day, you better throw out any moral understanding whatsoever. Treat it like a true fetus. Treat it like deciding whether or not you want to buy the Corvette or the Taurus. Its not a person, its a thing.
Zihark. It doesn't matter why she makes the decision. The why does not matter. She should be allowed to make it.
Doctors don't have the right to withhold information from their parents.
I say it should go back to the "good old days" of 30-40 years ago when you only found out if the baby was a boy or a girl when delivered...as for "selective" abortions due to gender of the baby, that should be ILLEGAL in itself!!! if ANY female has more than two abortions, they should be sterilized, period...there are too many birthcontrol options out there for women to be using abortion as a birth control method, period.
Missy, for women to have even two abortions is extremely rare.
I realize that times have changed (some for the good) but when I had my children we had no idea what the sex of our babies were going to be and that was fine because we didn't get our hopes up and being let down if something did happen. I sometimes wonder if this is not the right way to go even today. We should accept the child that we carried and borne no matter what. Yes we all want our child (ren) to be healthy but sometimes that just isn't in the cards and we must deal with this.
Okay. So what we are saying is that prochoice do NOT want to limit a woman's right to an ultrasound to see if a baby's gender is worth keeping or killing but DO want to limit a woman's right to an ultrasound so she can see her baby before she decides to kill it? This doesn't make any sense to me...You can't have it both ways...
but DO want to limit a woman's right to an ultrasound so she can see her baby before she decides to kill it?
I must insist English is a simple enough language to comprehend and not make mix-ups of meaning in one's head. Presenting an option for an ultrasound is never needed, because the mother always retains the medical right to ask for one. Therefore, forcing the doctor to offer one (or forcing the doctor to perform one). It can be concluded on thus that no pro-choice group has introduced legislation taking away the right of the mother to request an ultrasound, merely they oppose the requirement to offer one. It is redundant and is simply a way for you to give the woman the middle finger before she has an abortion. For the record, most women look because they are curious, and most still have the abortion anyway.
No but prochoice groups DO rally against any proposals to require/offer one meaning they DO want a limit on it. Otherwise, they would not have an opinion and it would be a non issue. And honestly, what would it hurt to have one prior to aborting? Unless, the abortion industry is afraid to lose a client...
No but prochoice groups DO rally against any proposals to require/offer one meaning they DO want a limit on it.
Being against an offering of something is not the same as wanting to ban said thing. That would be like saying someone who does not want Walmart checkout clerks saying "Would you like to buy a gun with today's purchase" is the same as someone who is against the second amendment altogether.
And honestly, what would it hurt to have one prior to aborting?
A judge would ask you what the rational basis is for wanting one. If abortion is legal, it serves no purpose to see it or not see it. But I will repeat: most women are curious and look, and most women have one anyway. But there is a harm to it.......the ultrasound has nothing to do with the fetus by the time the mother has made the decision. It is about you trying to let the mother know you are passing judgment. You know that's all it is.
BTW, that's the very same reason you will not find info on Medicaid/WIC/state funding and adoption services flyers in an abortion clinic...
hiltz-
It would hurt to be FORCED to have an ultrasound before an abortion, like some states require. Most likely, a woman would have to go in for 2 separate appointments, because of mandatory waiting periods. Depending on a woman's work schedule and how far she lives from a clinic, it could mean losing an extra day of work (in addition to the time she'll have to take off for recovery), which most people can't afford to lose, and driving several hours each way for the appointments, if that's how long it takes to get to the nearest provider. For someone who makes a low wage, or is in school, or doesn't have a car, etc.,...ouch.
If gender is so important, I believe there is a process in which the sperm and egg are put in a petri dish and the sperm containing x or y chromosomes that determine sex are isolated so that only male or female carrying chromosomes will fertilize the egg. The egg is then implanted in the mother and viola, you get the boy or girl you want. Not as much fun as the old fashioned way, but sure beats abortion!
If I were a woman and I was barred from knowing the baby's gender, I'd ask for a coin.
This is one of those issues where I doubt reason will enter the debate. If one is pro-choice, and indeed if that's the option our nation functions under, then having an abortion because of gender can't be legally different than having an abortion because you aren't ready for a child. I bet some people on either extreme would not see a moral difference either.
That said, my desire to know what color to paint the baby's room trumps some crusader's efforts to stop gender based abortions. You don't punish all people because of some perceived problem.....that's the same crooked thinking that gave us the TSA. We must accept the risks of a free society if we want to live in one.
"A nation that kills its own children, is a nation without hope"
Blessed John Paul II
I work at a Crisis Pregnancy Center that focuses on abortion education as well as pre-natal development. By 18 to 22 weeks (when women normally find out the sex of their child), the baby or "fetus" is a fully developed human being. It can think for itself, feel pain, suck it's thumb, and even see. The heart is beating, and the nervous system is complete. So by this point in the pregnancy you're obviously terminating the life of a child. Not aborting a "fetus." It's a baby. Not a mass of tissue. If you child isn't your gender-of-choice, at least love yourself and your baby enough to place him or her in an adoptive home. There are plenty of adoptive families who can't have children, who will love that baby--boy or girl.
sm, I knew that those Crisis Pregnancy Centers told a lot of lies...but saying a fetus can think for itself is absurd, even by their standards.
The fetus can "think for itself"??!! Oh my! Can't you just see all of these "genius" fetuses plotting the overthrow of the world? On second thought - maybe they are inventing ways to stay in the womb forever. Next those darn fetuses will be sending out diplomatic messages negotiating for easier passage or they won't come out.
Thought this would be a fun little topic to discuss today! I hope everyone reads the entire article and then comments!
While I am pro-life and generally find abortions reprehensible, this has taken the topic to an all new low. While I believe God can work good out of any circumstance, I at least understand why someone who was sexually abused and had no choice in getting pregnant would consider abortion as an option. I cannot believe, and refuse to accept, that Americans of any religion (or lack thereof) would make a decision as shallow as aborting a child based on gender. If you must be told this is unacceptable, you lack the moral fiber necessary to be a parent and should therefore have your right to bear children aborted!
I had an ultra sound with my first pregnancy in Texas and was gladly told the gender of my baby. I had my second child in Canada and was denied the knowledge of my baby's sex in 1990 because of the digusting cultural desire for male children of certain ethnic groups. I lived near the border and I was told that women would literally walk out of the ultra sound and head straight fo the US border to get an abortion there. I was appalled. I am pro choice but what kind of people do this to a healthy viable fetus. The problem is purely ethnic and I really think thats where we need to fix the problem. As a comment stated earlier who is going to have these peoples future children if they kill all the female fetuses? There is a bigger problem here, cause God only knows what they will do when they actually have the baby and its not what they wanted.
If you are "pro-choice," you can make no judgement on any reason why a woman has an abortion, including for a healthy, viable fetus. All "pro-choice" organizations advocate that.
Easy Solution: Restrict the length of term in which the murder is legal.
There must be some known statistic of when the sex is 100% determinable. Roll back the law to that point. At least then, the person doesn't have to go to bed at night knowing whether they just murdered their son or daughter.
This has just another way in which this legalized murder is used far beyond the scope of it's intended purpose. In my youth I knew so many murderers that used this as birth control casually and callously, some already had a half-dozen before they were 25yo.
I am neither pro or con for complete removal of legal access to abortion, because I have no right to judge as a male. OTOH, if you stop a beating heart you just killed someone... deal with it.
I would expect this is the backwards 3rd world countries but here in the U.S or Canada where people are 'supposed' to be smarter I find it very troubling.
The problem with the tradition of undervaluing the female sex is not that it's immoral. It is illogical. In considering daughters to be worthless or an inconvenience, men fail to acknowledge the fact that no one can have sons without daughters. We express disbelief at countries who devalue or undervalue women, but at the same time carry on the same themes in our "progressive" society. How many times have you referred to a chick flick, blamed a woman's period, or blushed at a breastfeeding mother because breasts are "sexual"? All of these things aim at taking one of women's strengths and turning into a weakness (or just another plaything for men).
I'm glad this brings to light the fact that even here in the US, the female sex is still considered a disadvantage.
I don't understand how the mother is entitled to know the sex of her baby. A lot of doctor's refuse to tell you the sex because many times they can be wrong. Also, there is NEVER a 100% guess at what the fetus's gender is...at most probably 90%. Ultrasound techs/doctors simply cannot give out a 100% answer as to whether it's a boy or girl. So, I'm failing to see how the sex is something the mother is entitled to know. And also a despicable reason to have an abortion. When you want a child you take the 50/50 risk of having either a boy or a girl. If you don't like those odds, don't procreate.
I don't understand how the mother is entitled to know the sex of her baby.
Because you can't constitutionally come up with a way for the government to stop her from getting that information. Whatever personal liberties are not limited by the constitution or derivative statute are in fact entitlements a person has. You can't force a doctor to tell you, but doctors are hardly the gatekeepers of medicine for an educated populace.
segj48-
I don't understand how the mother is entitled to know the sex of her baby.
Really? I don't understand how she's NOT entitled to know.
It's about time society, government and church started getting OUT of women's lives and their decisions on what to do with their OWN bodies! It's a private matter, it's a private choice, it's a woman's decision only. No one else's. If a woman chooses to have a baby or not to have the baby, it's HER decision. No one else's. It's time for the world to grow up and realize women are independent beings and quite able to make decisions on their own. Stop meddling with women's reproductive and sexual rights!
Abortion is murder. Just because the government says it isn't don't mean it isn't. Killing a baby in the womb is no different than killing it outside. Why? Because we all know that as babies fresh out our mothers womb we don't know or feel anything, same as inside the womb. So if killing the baby outside the womb is murder than killing it inside is murder. But of course money is the root of all evil and since there is profit to be made off killing babies the law just been bended to making it LEGAL. Shame how many people has no mind of there own and is always with authorities or government on every subject. If government says abortion is wrong, majority of people says its wrong. If they say its right, majority of people says its right. Quit being sheep people!!!
Actually, Array, there is money to be made for arranging adoptions too...for everyone except the mother, who is not allowed to take a dime. My own feeling is that the mother should be allowed to get some of it at least...because no moral outcries are as effective as that good old profit motive.
@Cassandra
Whaaaaaa? There are plenty of "birth mothers" out there, that did have an unplanned pregnancy, that receive: stipend, healthcare, and a payment at the end. The woman just needs to be smart enough to find a proper avenues to do so. I know several adoptive parents who have gone this route, or at least investigate the possibility. I'm not sure what planet you live on...
A) this is not a problem in the US.
B) if it were (aborting female fetuses), the doctor should not be allowed to omit any information, as abortions are legal.
C) although I don't have a strong opinion about abortion, it is very clear that the pro-Life people are absolute nuts (referring to everyone as MURDERERS)...Stay classy pro-lifers