On Thursday 14 Apr 2011 8:43:57 pm Jon Cox wrote: > Early detection of gender-linked chromosomal disorders > is a sound medical reason for prenatal gender determination. > Not disputing that at all, but let me post a medical perspective starting from the 1980s. In order to gain entry into the UK I had to pass an examination which demanded that I had to study (once again) subjects like Obstetrics and Gynaecology. For a change I obtained a standard British textbook for that and I was gobsmacked to learn some things.
In those days I was accustomed to seeing horrendous figures for maternal mortality in India. The figures were among the worst in the world. And the causes of maternal mortality were things like tetanus, childbirth in dirty/septic surroundings, anaemia, frequent childbirth, lack of recognition/treatment of pregnancy and childbirth complications etc. Imagine my amazement when I read the British figures and realised that maternal mortality in Britain was 1/10th that in India and the most frequent cause of maternal death in britain was anaestheic complications during Caesarean section. What India and Britain needed were two different things. India needed investment in heathcare centers with trained midwiives and ultrasound scanners and a system of basic pre natal actions like meaurement of BP, immunization against tetanus and the like. Britain was on its own trip - trying to minimize anaesthetic complications. In India it is a relief if the pregnant woman has been immunized against tetanus. In the UK they check for antibodies against Rubella and evidence of CMV infection, Two different worlds No one can argue that it is not important to look at the gender for certain reasons - but one has to get priorities right and for that we come face to face with a dilemma. Do we stop gender determination and save 10 million girls or do we allow gender determination and save 20,000 women from giving birth to children with genetic defects? (the figures are hyothetical but vaguely representative) shiv
