Pennings Guido
Department of Philosophy, Pleinlaan 2, lokaal 5 C 442, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium.
Prenat Diagn. 2002 Dec;22(12):1123-9. doi: 10.1002/pd.499.
The arguments against the use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) for non-medical sex selection are analysed. It is concluded that the distinction between medical and non-medical reasons is difficult to maintain, that the disproportionality of means and end is not a decisive counterargument and that the fear of damage to the reputation of PGD does not justify the refusal of controversial applications. Moreover, since non-medical sex selection does not belong to basic health care, it should not be equally accessible to all. The position defended in this article is founded on two basic principles: (1). medical reasons have priority on non-medical reasons, and (2). personal reasons do not qualify for public funding. In order to respect both principles, it is proposed that restrictions should be installed to control the number of requests for social sexing and that a tax should be imposed on these elective services. The tax should compensate the society for the investment it made in the training and education of the physician.
分析了反对将植入前基因诊断（PGD）用于非医学性别选择的论点。得出的结论是，医学原因与非医学原因之间的区分难以维持，手段与目的的不相称并非决定性的反对理由，且担心损害PGD的声誉并不能成为拒绝有争议应用的正当理由。此外，由于非医学性别选择不属于基本医疗保健范畴，不应让所有人都能平等获得。本文所捍卫的立场基于两项基本原则：（1）医学原因优先于非医学原因；（2）个人原因不符合公共资金资助条件。为了兼顾这两项原则，建议设置限制措施以控制社会性别选择的申请数量，并对这些选择性服务征税。该税款应补偿社会在医生培训和教育方面的投入。
