TY - JOUR
T1 - Evolution of gender options in multiple pregnancy management
AU - Evans, Mark I.
AU - Rosner, Mara
AU - Andriole, Stephanie
AU - Alkalay, Avishai
AU - Gebb, Juliana
AU - Britt, David W.
PY - 2013/10/1
Y1 - 2013/10/1
N2 - Objective: Fetal reduction (FR) in multiples dramatically improves outcomes. We prioritize FR decisions for health and historically declined to factor gender. As male preferences apparently diminished, our bioethicist encouraged a re-evaluation. Methods: Three hundred ninety-six patients reducing triplets or twins were categorized as 3→2, 3→1, and 2→1, Major (M) anomaly or minor (m) anomaly, same gender (SG), and those for whom gender preference (GP) was possible. Higher order and non chorionic villus sampling were excluded. FR decisions were prioritized by M anomaly, Suspicious, or m anomaly. If neither, we considered GP. Results: Of 319, 214 (67%) had either M/m or SG. Of those, 3→2 with gender option: 71/79 chose male and female or had no preferences, one chose male/male, and seven chose female/female. We reduced monochorionic twins in 33/35 3→1 cases. Of 20 with GP choice, 10 chose male and 10 chose female. Of 162 2→1, 54 had M or m, 50 were SG, but of the 44 M/F twins, 20 chose male and 24 chose female. Conclusions: There has been a cultural shift mostly preferring one of each or having no preference. When reducing to one, >50% prefer a girl. In addition to identifying abnormalities, chorionic villus sampling before FR expands patient autonomy.
AB - Objective: Fetal reduction (FR) in multiples dramatically improves outcomes. We prioritize FR decisions for health and historically declined to factor gender. As male preferences apparently diminished, our bioethicist encouraged a re-evaluation. Methods: Three hundred ninety-six patients reducing triplets or twins were categorized as 3→2, 3→1, and 2→1, Major (M) anomaly or minor (m) anomaly, same gender (SG), and those for whom gender preference (GP) was possible. Higher order and non chorionic villus sampling were excluded. FR decisions were prioritized by M anomaly, Suspicious, or m anomaly. If neither, we considered GP. Results: Of 319, 214 (67%) had either M/m or SG. Of those, 3→2 with gender option: 71/79 chose male and female or had no preferences, one chose male/male, and seven chose female/female. We reduced monochorionic twins in 33/35 3→1 cases. Of 20 with GP choice, 10 chose male and 10 chose female. Of 162 2→1, 54 had M or m, 50 were SG, but of the 44 M/F twins, 20 chose male and 24 chose female. Conclusions: There has been a cultural shift mostly preferring one of each or having no preference. When reducing to one, >50% prefer a girl. In addition to identifying abnormalities, chorionic villus sampling before FR expands patient autonomy.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84884975199&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84884975199&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/pd.4167
DO - 10.1002/pd.4167
M3 - Article
C2 - 23716482
AN - SCOPUS:84884975199
SN - 0197-3851
VL - 33
SP - 935
EP - 939
JO - Prenatal Diagnosis
JF - Prenatal Diagnosis
IS - 10
ER -