Public asked if choosing a baby's sex is acceptable

Demand from couples wanting to choose the sex of their babies is rising but there are serious worries about allowing new techniques of sex selection to be used for social reasons, the Government's fertility regulator said yesterday.

The development of systems for sorting sperm, first used in breeding cattle, has brought the possibility of "family balancing" within reach of a large number of couples, raising ethical questions for individuals and for society, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) said.

A consultation document published by the authority yesterday notes that sex selection of embryos is already permitted to enable couples to avoid passing on serious sex-linked genetic conditions to future generations.

However, the development of "sperm sorting" techniques which give a 70 to 90 per cent chance of producing a baby of the desired sex have opened up the prospect of couples choosing the sex of their babies for social reasons.

Although the technique is not available in the UK, at least six British couples have travelled to the US and Belgium to take advantage of it. Surveys in the US show 25 to 30 per cent of couples say they would use sex selection if it were available.

In light of those developments, ministers asked the HFEA to test public opinion on the matter, almost a decade after the last public consultation in 1993 when sex selection for social reasons was rejected.

Suzi Leather, chairwoman of the HFEA, dismissed speculation that the authority was planning to recommend it be allowed. "That is absolutely not the case."

The authority's task was to consult the public and make recommendations to ministers but Ms Leather said it was uncertain whether the authority would reach a firm conclusion on the issue. "There may be more than one view," she said.

A hint of the differing views came during a press conference to launch the consultation document yesterday. Tom Baldwin, professor of philosophy at York University and a member of the authority, said those in favour of sex selection argued that sex and procreation were private activities in which the state should not interfere so long as there were no harmful consequences.

Arguments against included the fear that parents who went to the trouble of choosing the sex of a child might care too much about the child's gender, forcing it into traditional roles, or neglect or abuse it if the method failed and it turned out to be the "wrong" sex.

But Professor Baldwin dismissed fears that the method would lead to an imbalance in the sexes, as has happened with crude methods of selection in India and China. "Our society does not manifest those prejudices." He suggested sperm sorting might be restricted to couples who already had two children of the same sex.

However, speaking after the press conference, Ms Leather said that in China and parts of India, there were only four girls for every five boys and if a sizeable proportion of the male population was unable to find partners there could be unpredictable social consequences.

"I am not saying that would happen here but we need to look at the broader consequences and ask ourselves what is the message we send to other countries?"

The consultation comes as the authority confirmed it was planning a long-term study of children born by IVF to determine if there were any damaging consequences, as revealed in The Independent yesterday.

Maureen Dalziel, chief executive of the HFEA, said "draconian rules" on confidentiality restricted access to children already born and the authority was consulting lawyers and researchers over this.

Focus groups established by the authority had shown little support for sex selection for social reasons but the numbers involved were small and people had tended to change their view when asked to consider their own case.

The consultation period over sperm sorting runs for three months until 22 January 2003.