Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 3/2018

01-03-2018 | Assisted Reproduction Technologies

Sex selection for non-medical indications: a survey of current pre-implantation genetic screening practices among U.S. ART clinics

Authors: Sarah M. Capelouto, Sydney R. Archer, Jerrine R. Morris, Jennifer F. Kawwass, Heather S. Hipp

Published in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics | Issue 3/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

This study aimed to determine the current percentage of United States (U.S.) assisted reproductive technology (ART) clinics offering sex selection via pre-implantation genetic screening (PGS) for non-medical purposes.

Methods

The authors conducted website review and telephone interview survey of 493 U.S. ART clinics performing in vitro fertilization (IVF) in 2017. Main outcome measures were pre-implantation genetic screening (PGS)/pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) practices and non-medical sex selection practices including family balancing.

Results

Of the 493 ART clinics in the USA, 482 clinics (97.8%) responded to our telephone interview survey. Among all U.S. ART clinics, 91.9% (n = 449) reported offering PGS and/or PGD. Furthermore, 476 clinics responded to survey questions about sex selection practices. Of those ART clinics, 72.7% (n = 346) reported offering sex selection. More specifically among those clinics offering sex selection, 93.6% (n = 324) reported performing sex selection for family balancing, and 81.2% (n = 281) reported performing for elective purposes (patient preference, regardless of rationale for the request). For couples without infertility, 83.5% (n = 289) of clinics offer sex selection for family balancing and 74.6% (n = 258) for non-specific elective reasons.

Conclusions

The majority of U.S. ART clinics offer non-medical sex selection, a percentage that has increased substantially since last reported in 2006.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Baruch S, Kaufman D, Hudson KL. Genetic testing of embryos: practices and perspectives of US in vitro fertilization clinics. Fertil Steril. 2008;89:1053–8.CrossRefPubMed Baruch S, Kaufman D, Hudson KL. Genetic testing of embryos: practices and perspectives of US in vitro fertilization clinics. Fertil Steril. 2008;89:1053–8.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Hens K, Dondorp WJ, Geraedts JP, de Wert GM. Comprehensive embryo testing: experts' opinions regarding future directions: an expert panel study on comprehensive embryo testing. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:1418–25.CrossRefPubMed Hens K, Dondorp WJ, Geraedts JP, de Wert GM. Comprehensive embryo testing: experts' opinions regarding future directions: an expert panel study on comprehensive embryo testing. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:1418–25.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Mastenbroek S, Twisk M, van Echten-Arends J, Sikkema-Raddatz B, Korevaar JC, Verhoeve HR, et al. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:9–17.CrossRefPubMed Mastenbroek S, Twisk M, van Echten-Arends J, Sikkema-Raddatz B, Korevaar JC, Verhoeve HR, et al. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:9–17.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Use of reproductive technology for sex selection for nonmedical reasons. Fertil Steril. 2015;103:1418–22.CrossRef Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Use of reproductive technology for sex selection for nonmedical reasons. Fertil Steril. 2015;103:1418–22.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Committee on Ethics American College of Obstetricians, Gynecologists. ACOG committee opinion no. 360: sex selection. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109:475–8.CrossRef Committee on Ethics American College of Obstetricians, Gynecologists. ACOG committee opinion no. 360: sex selection. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109:475–8.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. 2015 fertility clinic success rates report: data clinic tables and data dictionary. Atlanta: US Dept of Health and Human Services; 2017. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. 2015 fertility clinic success rates report: data clinic tables and data dictionary. Atlanta: US Dept of Health and Human Services; 2017.
7.
go back to reference Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. 2014 assisted reproductive technology fertility clinic success rates report. Atlanta: US Dept of Health and Human Services; 2016. Report No.: GS-23F-8144H. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. 2014 assisted reproductive technology fertility clinic success rates report. Atlanta: US Dept of Health and Human Services; 2016. Report No.: GS-23F-8144H.
Metadata
Title
Sex selection for non-medical indications: a survey of current pre-implantation genetic screening practices among U.S. ART clinics
Authors
Sarah M. Capelouto
Sydney R. Archer
Jerrine R. Morris
Jennifer F. Kawwass
Heather S. Hipp
Publication date
01-03-2018
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics / Issue 3/2018
Print ISSN: 1058-0468
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7330
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-017-1076-2

Other articles of this Issue 3/2018

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 3/2018 Go to the issue