A time to be born.(endeavor in obstetrics and gynecology)(COMMENTARY)(Viewpoint essay)

Perhaps no other area of endeavor in obstetrics and gynecology has received more media attention in recent months than the field of infertility treatment and perinatal outcomes. The public has borne witness to an onslaught of incredible advances and developments in our field. Many of these advances have challenged social complacency.

The recent controversy concerning the birth of octuplets through in vitro fertilization (IVF) drew unprecedented attention to assisted reproductive technologies (ART) that has eclipsed even the announcement of the birth of Louise Brown, the world's first IVF conception 30 years ago.

The announcement by our center of plans to provide genetic information about embryo eye pigmentation predisposition in a very select group of patients where such information was becoming available led to what can only be described as a worldwide media extravaganza of interest, and in many cases, criticism. Although the plans for eye pigmentation stemmed from some of our original work with ocular albinism, such background information quickly vanished from the worldwide media headlines, being replaced with the sound bite term "designer babies."

Our fertility centers have drawn intense interest for nearly a decade for providing high-volume preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD)-based gender selection options with 100% outcome success to those undertaking aneuploidy testing in our programs.

Through our struggles with the introduction and popularization of PGD-based gender selection technology, we have searched over the years for professional input into our plans. We have been disheartened to read second hand of policy statements from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine concerning gender selection. At the time the statements were published, we were--as we remain now--the largest provider of PGD-based gender selection services. Having never been contacted or queried by either organization prior to policy statements on the procedures with which we had tremendous success, what we saw as a gold standard for professional input lost credibility. Although clearly well-intentioned, credible organizations representing our specialties implied in their summations that the opinions expressed represented a consensus. With more than 40% of ART programs offering some degree of gender selection options to interested patients, a serious disconnect in the entire arena of the due diligence surrounding "committee" opinions remains. And we encouraged much-needed immediate reform, especially as we are standing on the edge of yet ...