This article explores the moral significance of technology, reviewing a microfluidic chip for sperm sorting and its use for non-medical sex selection. I explore how a specific material setting of this new iteration of pre-pregnancy sex selection technology-with a promised low cost, non-invasive nature and possibility to use at home-fosters new and exacerbates existing ethical concerns. I compare this new technology with the existing sex selection methods of sperm sorting and Prenatal Genetic Diagnosis. Current ethical and political debates on emerging technologies predominantly focus on the quantifiable risk-and-benefit logic that invites an unequivocal \"either-or\" decision on their future and misses the contextual ethical impact of technology. The article aims to deepen the discussion on sex selection and supplement it with the analysis of the new technology\'s ethical potential to alter human practices, perceptions and the evaluative concepts with which we approach it. I suggest that the technological mediation approach (Verbeek, 2005, 2011) can be useful to ethically contextualize technologies and highlight the value of such considerations for the informed deliberation regarding their use, design and governance.

The national ethical guidelines relevant to assisted reproductive technology (ART) have recently been reviewed by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). The review process paid particular attention to the issue of non-medical sex selection, although ultimately, the updated ethical guidelines maintain the pre-consultation position of a prohibition on non-medical sex selection. Whilst this recent review process provided a public forum for debate and discussion of this ethically contentious issue, the Victorian case of JS and LS v Patient Review Panel (Health and Privacy) [2011] VCAT 856 provides a rare instance where the prohibition on non-medical sex selection has been explored by a court or tribunal in Australia. This paper analyses the reasoning in that decision, focusing specifically on how the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal applied the statutory framework relevant to ART and its comparison to other uses of embryo selection technologies. The Tribunal relied heavily upon the welfare-of-the-child principle under the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008 (Vic). The Tribunal also compared non-medical sex selection with saviour sibling selection (that is, where a child is purposely conceived as a matched tissue donor for an existing child of the family). Our analysis leads us to conclude that the Tribunal\'s reasoning fails to adequately justify the denial of the applicants\' request to utilize ART services to select the sex of their prospective child.

BACKGROUND: Stillbirth is a prevalent adverse outcome of pregnancy in India despite efforts to improve care of women during pregnancy. Risk factors for stillbirths include sociodemographic factors, medical complications during pregnancy, intake of harmful drugs, and complications during delivery. The objective of the study was to examine the risk factors for stillbirth with a focus on sex selection drugs (SSDs).
METHODS: A population-based case-control study was undertaken in Haryana. Cases of stillbirths were identified from the Maternal Infant Death Review System portal of Haryana state for the months of August-September 2014. A consecutive birth from the same geographical area as the case was selected as the control. The sample size was 325 per group. Mothers were interviewed using a validated tool. Bivariate analyses and logistic regression were conducted to examine the association between risk factors and stillbirth. Attributable risk proportions (ARP) and population attributable risk proportions (PARP) were estimated.
RESULTS: The sociodemographic profiles of the cases and controls were similar. History of intake of SSDs [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 2.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.5, 4.5] emerged as a risk factor. Other significant factors were preterm <37 weeks (OR 3.5, 95% CI 2.1, 6.0), history of previous stillbirths (OR 4.0, 95% CI 2.1, 7.8), and complications during labour (OR 3.3, 95% CI 2.1, 5.3). Estimates of the ARP and PARP for intake of SSDs were 0.60 (95% CI 0.32, 0.77) and 0.1 (95% CI -0.13, 0.28), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: SSDs could be attributed as a risk factor in a fifth of the cases of stillbirths. The number needed to harm for the use of SSDs in causing adverse effect of stillbirths was 5, suggesting thereby that for every five mothers exposed to SSDs, one would have stillbirth. Greater efforts are required to inform people about the harmful effects of SSD consumption during pregnancy.