Behind the controversial proposal is Dr. Rajendra Kale, Interim Editor-in-Chief of the journal. Kale based his arguments on a forthcoming study that uses census data to demonstrate that in Indian families with two girls, it is twice as likely as would be expected that the third is a boy, providing evidence of the selective abortion of female fetuses. Kale argues that female feticide is a serious problem in some Asian immigrant communities in Canada and suggests the best response is to forbid doctors from informing expectant parents of the sex of their child until the pregnancy can be considered late-term.

While sex-selective abortion is not a widespread problem in Canada and will not produce a demographic crisis, Kale believes that the practice is sufficiently problematic to warrant intervention on the part of the Canadian Medical Association.

Professor Robert Dickens, Professor Emeritus of Health Law and Policy at the University of Toronto, offered several criticisms of the proposal and its implications. First, he noted that the parameters of the proposal pose a few problems. As a professional regulation, rather than a law, the policy would not be directly subject to the constitution; however, this could still leave doctors open to charges of professional misconduct if they do not disclose the information to parents.

“The Supreme Court states that patients have a right to access all the information in their records,” Dickens explained. The doctor should play the role of trustee with regard to medical records, and is therefore required to serve the interests of the patient. Dickens did offer the caveat, “if doctors don’t look for the sex, then there is nothing to disclose.”

While Dickens does not deny that in some communities, sex-selective abortion is a real problem, he argued that Dr. Kale’s proposed solution would also result in a variety of unintended consequences. “Just because a decision is based on sex doesn’t mean it’s sexist,” he stated. “In most cases the decision isn’t based on [systematic] preference for one sex over another, but simply family balancing.” In this case, the decision to abort, or not to abort, does not lead to pernicious demographic outcomes.

Dickens also expressed skepticism towards the idea that selective abortion of female fetuses would lead to long-term problems in Canadian immigrant communities. “Even if it is important for families to have sons, wives are required at some point,” Dickens said. He added that after a generation or two, a shortage of girls will lead to an increase in their social value, thus mitigating the problem. Furthermore, if there is concern that societies insufficiently value women, it is improbable that ensuring women carry female fetuses to term would resolve the underlying issue.

Given these parameters, Dickens argued that a ban on disclosing the sex of fetuses will neither be a useful nor an effective policy. The sex-selection of fetuses points to an undercurrent of deeper cultural concerns; in this case, it would be more effective to deal with the root causes.

While Dickens acknowledged that Dr. Kale “brought the issue up in an appropriate way” to the relevant communities, the proposed legal solution is ill-fitted to the problem. Further, because the practice is very limited, it would not be appropriate to make a national policy of it. “This is the tail wagging the dog,” Dickens said. He concluded by suggesting that, “withholding the information you have is at best paternalistic,” and not appropriate for a democratic society.