All right. Today we're gonna be answering the question on whether parents should be able to choose the sex of their baby or to choose, uh, in some ways, a genetic modification of their baby, um, as a result of in vitro fertilization or, you know, the ability for that technology to offer those choices. Um So as technology becomes increasingly capable and available for people to choose the genetic outcomes of their offspring, many ethical and legal considerations must be taken into account when deciding which practices air acceptable, which are not. Ah, this is one headline that it was in the news a couple of years ago. Um, when you know, these types of questions are coming to the fore now because, um, you know the technologies available and people have the option of choosing whether have a boy or girl. Um, so the question becomes should people be allowed to do that? So there are a lot of people that have ah, um have a stake in the answer to that question. So we'll look at a few of the stakeholders we're going to look at, um, what is determined to be acceptable in unacceptable criteria for making those decisions. And then finally, um, you know what type of legislation might be needed? Toe help ensure either the availability of choice or limitations on that choice. So who should decide these types of questions? Who are the stakeholders? Well, you've got patients. Of course, people who are having these procedures are done or taking part in these procedures. On you've got doctors. You've got lawmakers, lawyers, scientists and ethicists. You know, people who try and decide, you know, is this morally conscionable? Um, practice. Um so all these people must be brought in to weigh the pros and cons off some of these proposed practices in leaders in these situations. Um, as decision makers will need to consider input from all the stakeholders. And I should mention that is, with most of life's complicated issues, there are no clear cut yes or no answers, which sometimes make them difficult to resolve. So how do we decide? Um, there are what is known as acceptable criterion unacceptable criteria. So acceptable criteria would be, you know, generally speaking, what most people would accept, what behaviors were choices with people, um, consider acceptable. Um, some examples specifically for making choices whether it's regard to sex of the child or different genetic makeup of the child. Um, for these embryos, that result from in vitro fertilization might be debilitating or deadly diseases. Um, some examples. Tie Sachs disease, very deadly. Cystic fibrosis. Very debilitating. Duchenne muscular dystrophy also very debilitating, often leading to death. Um, so those types of criteria, um, when there's debilitating disease, especially genetically, uh, derived disease. Um, people consider those acceptable criteria to decide to make a choice of having a baby that does not have these diseases. Um, with regard to sex, another consideration might be intra family. That's within the family. Ah, um, sex or gender balancing. So if a family has three boys already and they want to have a girl, people generally consider that to be acceptable. And it doesn't seem to upset the natural balance that nature has struck with sexual reproduction there being 50 percent male and 50% female. Generally speaking, I know there are, ah, lots. There's lots of gender fluidity and in sexual variations within within this general dichotomy, Um, but generally speaking, the balance is 50 50. And so, as long as there's not an upset of that people seemed to be having a favorable view of yeah, practice being okay within a family. And when you get to larger families, it doesn't seem to be is acceptable. I'll talk about that in a minute. That leads us to unacceptable criteria. This would be criteria that most people do not accept. Um, you know, for one reason or another, they are a new agreement. These air not acceptable reasons to be able to make these particular choices. So with regard to um with regard to choosing the sex or the generic outcome of the baby, um, most people don't accept that it's okay to base that on cultural or personal preferences that leads to the example in China and in India. There is a strong motivation for families to have males being born in male heirs. Um, and that has resulted in about, UM, 70 million more males than females between those two countries. And that's resulted in a lot of problems from very personal problems on the part of males like loneliness to farther reaching societal problems. More challenges for those countries, um, in the form of male violence, um, often against women in the form of human trafficking of women prostitution, um, in other violent crimes. So, you know, there could be a riel problem when we when this decision is allowed in accordance with cultural practices where you know where the balance is. Not really. Come. Um, some other unacceptable criteria would be things like selecting for superficial traits like eye color. Um, you might also be able to say things like hiding intelligence. But currently, those traits are so complex in our, you know, the results of interactions of many, many genes, sometimes thousands of genes that currently we don't have the technology to select four you know, ah, specific genes for intelligence or height or many other trades for that. But at some point in the fourth in the future and made, that may become possible. Um, this is just, ah, another, um, headline about the imbalance, um, and, you know, and gender becoming a problem when it's when it's imbalanced. I'm so the last thing here is, so we have an idea of what's acceptable. It's not acceptable in general terms, and there is no strong legislation on this currently. So the point will be, you know, some point do we have to legislate. There's a couple things to consider. Um, different people have different interpretations. So while one person's ah, inter family personal preference, um, you know would be one person's profits may seem valid to them on the outside or in a cultural sense, it may not be, um, you know, it may not be the preferred choice or an acceptable choice, and so different people are gonna have to for new interpretations that's gonna run some conflict. Um, sometimes people are going to be more self serving. Were self, you know, act in their own self interest. And that might not be the ah, um, the best choice for everybody involved, Um, that leads to sometimes something called the tragedy of the comments. It's a hypothetical experiment where you have a shared resource in if there are no laws to limit usage of that resource. Um, you know, people can agree on not using that resource or limiting their use, but somebody's and say, Well, if there's no law than technically I can do that, I can use up the resource and another person will say, Well, if they can use the resource that I can use resource And now all of sudden you've got everybody working in their own self interest and, you know, the shared resource is pleaded. That's a general example, but it can still apply for everybody's working in their own self interest. You can get situations where it could be. Making those choices can be very problematic. So, um, eventually people will disagree on what those interpretations bean. And so the law will then have to interpret what the limits are. So you know, when the demand is low for making this choice, there's probably not as much need for legislation but as the demand made become stronger than, uh, then you will we will need the law to interpret those limits. So there we have it, um, you know, some understanding the criteria for, um for acceptable and unacceptable criteria for choosing the sex or the genetic, Uh, you know, the genetic markers for the child and, um, also who's who are the stakeholders for making those decisions. And finally, um, we will probably have to legislate at some point, although the demand is not high for that right now.