Withholding Sex of Fetus could Curb ‘Female Feticide’ in Canada: Doctor

Soul_jyot · #10 (**permalink**) 20-Jan-2012, 21:39 PM

Orientalist discourse on female feticide in Canada

January 18, 2012

Haroon Siddiqui - The Star, Toronto

The Canadian Medical Association Journal says the way to stop the abortion of female fetuses is to withhold disclosing the sex of a fetus until 30 weeks, by which time “an unquestioned abortion is all but impossible.” This raises questions:

Since a woman has the right to an abortion, on what basis would the state rob her of that right?

To save female fetuses, obviously. If so, would it be okay to abort male fetuses, as some women in North America are said to be doing?

Or, would the ban extend to all fetuses — as pro-lifers have long argued — including those diagnosed with life-threatening defects? Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum advocates so, and relates how his wife carried just such a baby to full term in 1996, only to see the newborn die within hours. Sarah Palin made the choice of giving birth to a boy with Down syndrome.

These legal and ethical dilemmas are not tackled by the medical journal’s editor, Dr. Rajendra Kale, in his signed editorial, “‘It’s a girl!’— could be a death sentence.”

A native of Mumbai, where he did his initial medical studies, he thinks that Indo Canadians as well those from China, Korea, Vietnam and the Philippines have imported the wretched practice into Canada.

The most authoritative voice on the “missing girls” phenomenon in India happens to be another Indo Canadian — Prof. Prabhat Jha of the University of Toronto, founding director of its Centre for Global Health Research.

He leads an internationally acclaimed study showing that up to 12 million female fetuses have been aborted in India in the last 30 years.

He also disproved that it’s mostly the illiterate poor who are desperate for sons (as insurance for old age) and who dread having a daughter (for whom they would have to raise marriage dowry that can bankrupt families).

Jha showed that female feticide is, in fact, more prevalent among educated and richer Indians. They are no different than the poor in their desire for sons (“the Indian equivalent of a Canada Pension Plan and/or an RRSP”). The difference is that they can afford the ultrasound tests and selective abortions.

They don’t devalue girls, per se, but rather desire “a balanced family.” If their first-born is a boy, they don’t go for abortions in subsequent pregnancies. But if the first or the first two are girls, the family opts to abort female fetuses.

In China, the male-female imbalance is worse than India’s, 833 per 1,000 vs. 914, Jha’s study shows.

The official one-child policy, combined with the traditional Chinese preference for male children, led to widespread selective abortions of female fetuses. By 2010, there were 32 million more boys than girls.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/canada/37890-withholding-sex-fetus-could-curb-female.html
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=37890

But are Canadians of Chinese, Indian and other Asian descent carrying on female feticide here?

Kale says they are. Some anecdotal evidence backs him. But the evidence he cites, including an American study of just 65 women from India and a Canadian one based on census, is speculative. One even admits that its findings “cannot be considered conclusive,” yet plows ahead: “it is not unreasonable to interpret them as good evidence that . . . the practice . . . is not completely abandoned by immigrants,” and that “if this is the case, there’s cause for concern,” etc. (emphases mine).

Scientists and researchers are not above mining anti-immigrant prejudices, unwittingly or otherwise. It is important that they, especially, adhere to higher standards than Orientalist radio hotline hosts. And that they subject their findings to vigorous peer reviews.

Jha is trying to properly determine the extent of female feticide among South Asian and East Asian immigrants in Canada, the U.S. and also South Africa.

The solution that Kale suggests has been in effect in India — to no effect. Disclosure of the sex of the fetus for the purpose of abortion has been illegal there since 1996.

The Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons already advises against using ultrasound to identify fetus gender. Its counterpart in B.C. says that terminating a pregnancy for an undesired sex is unethical.

There’s also the larger issue of the right of a patient to his or her medical information, a right confirmed by the Supreme Court in 1992.

As Jha says, “it’s good to raise the issue, but the solution shouldn’t do more harm than good.”

hsiddiqui@thestar.ca

source: http://www.thestar.com/opinion/edito...cide-in-canada

Soul_jyot · #11 (**permalink**) 20-Jan-2012, 22:23 PM

Today, sex selection
tomorrow, designer baby prospect looms

EDITORIAL: Vancouver Sun - January 20, 2012

The trouble with opening a can of worms is that it's mighty difficult to seal the thing up again. And when it comes to prenatal sex selection, the can of worms was opened long ago, as ultrasounds have long been able to provide obstetricians and pregnant women with information regarding the gender of their babies.

Despite that, Canadian Medical Association Journal interim editor Rajendra Kale is doing his level best to seal that particular can up again. In the current CMAJ's editorial, Kale cites evidence that prenatal sex selection - that is, aborting female fetuses - is being practised by some South and East Asian immigrants in Canada.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=37890

Calling such a practice "discrimination against women in its most extreme form," Kale asks how it can be stopped, and then answers his own question by advocating a ban on doctors providing a pregnant woman with information regarding the sex of her baby until about 30 weeks into the pregnancy - after which an abortion is highly unlikely.

Needless to say, Kale's editorial has proven deeply controversial, largely because it touches on deeply controversial matters - abortion, multicultural diversity and patient autonomy. Nevertheless, he should be praised for the editorial because it does raise an important, if uncomfortable, topic.

On the other hand, Kale's solution to the problem, which amounts to trying to seal the can of worms, is doomed to failure given that it is quite possibly illegal, and definitely impractical - or impossible.

To take the legal matter first: The Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies did discuss the possibility of withholding from pregnant women information about the sex of their fetus. However, the Assisted Human Reproduction Act, which came into force in 2004, does not prevent doctors from disclosing such information.

And for good reason, since the Supreme Court of Canada has held that a patient has a right to see all information in her medical record that the physician used to provide advice or treatment. One could argue that the sex of the baby is not a medical matter (except in cases of sex-linked diseases), but given the Supreme Court's decision, any law preventing physicians from disclosing such information would likely run afoul of the Charter.

But the legal matter is likely moot anyway, since it's now all but impossible to stop women from learning the sex of their fetuses, and in the future, it will definitely be impossible. The reason is simple: There already exist home tests that can reveal the sex of the baby, which means preventing obstetricians from providing such info becomes meaningless.

Such tests will only become more accurate in the future, and that raises another important issue: In the not-too-distant future, people will be able to buy a home test that tells them a great deal about their unborn babies. They will be able to terminate the pregnancy, not merely on the basis of the sex of the fetus, but on whether the baby has exactly the characteristics they desire.

In other words, we are about to open another can of worms, one concerning designer babies. Therefore, we need to have a serious societal discussion about where things are going, and where we want them to go. More-over, we should thank Rajendra Kale for starting that discussion, even if he only touched the tip of the iceberg.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=37890

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

source: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Tod...679/story.html